HAIL
TO THE CHIEF!
It
turns out that cyberspace – that anarchic, freewheeling
electronic frontier – does indeed have a "head," in
the form of Richard
Clarke of the National Security Council: Clark is what
the AP calls "the nation's top cyberspace official," kind
of the President of Cyberspace – although somehow I
don't remember voting in that particular election. But never
mind. On Friday, Clarke announced that we are in for a "digital
Pearl Harbor" – unless, of course, we take certain
measures. Now we all have our own take on the unnaturally
extended presidential election, but Clarke's perspective
is distinctly odd:
"What
this presidential election year showed is that statistically
improbable events can occur. It may be improbable that cyberspace
can be seriously disrupted, it may be improbable that a
war in cyberspace can occur, but it could happen."
INTERNET
THREAT?
The
anointed sovereign of cyberspace has spoken. But who or
what is going to be doing all this disrupting? Energy shortages
and threatened power blackouts in California
and elsewhere? Will some kind of virus infect the world's
computers, and bring down every website? Or will Al Gore,
the inventor of the Internet, get snippy
and pull out the rug from under us all? Clarke's explanation
is far less credible than any of the above: he asserts,
without getting specific, that several unidentified nations
have developed "information warfare units." These mysterious
"units," he claims, "are creating technology to bring down
computer networks. Some are doing reconnaissance today on
our networks, mapping them."
THE
MAP-MAKERS
Gee,
that sounds familiar. . . . Remember when Antiwar.com was
monitored by CERT, the special military unit supposedly
devoted to "protecting" America's cybernetic superstructure
from electronic attack? Longtime readers will remember the
[June 2, 2000] column wherein I described a sudden rise
in the number of hits on our site – numbers so large
that they caused the counting software to crash: it turned
out that they all emanated from the mysterious headquarters
of the Army's Computer Emergency
Response Team, set up under the rubric of the "war on
terrorism." Say what? How come the feds were monitoring
us, of all people, when they were supposed to be
guarding the electronic doorway to the nation's air traffic
control systems? What's up with that? – I asked,
and I believe a reporter from Counterpunch
followed
up on it, but there was never a satisfactory answer
to my question. Now, it seems, Clarke has inadvertently
provided us with a plausible scenario: could it be they
were mapping us, setting us up, as it were, for the
several
hacking incidents
that followed?
INFO-WAR
Now,
Mr. Clarke is no doubt right that several nations have set
up info-war units under military command: what he doesn't
say is that the US government probably had first, and the
best-funded program. President
Clinton announced as much during the Kosovo war: in
addition to dropping radioactive bombs from 30,000 feet,
the US would attack the Serbs in cyberspace. Rumor had it
that the CIA had trained a cadre of Kosovar
hackers, and they were apparently let loose on the Serbs
in a series of cyber-assaults, at one point commandeering
the Yugoslav government site, Serbia-info. And so, yes,
there is a threat to the peace and security of cyberspace
– coming not from some malevolent foreign power, but
from malicious hackers probably based right here in the
good ol' US of A. We were told by our Internet service provider
that he had never in his life seen a site subjected to so
many attempted hackings – and the assault continues,
even after moving to a more secure server and taking expensive
precautions.
OUR
PEARL HARBOR
Clarke
conjures up visions of a "Pearl Harbor" in cyberspace, but
we've already had our
own little Pearl Harbor right here at Antiwar.com. Once
such incident, as fans of this site will perhaps remember,
had us down for nearly a week. An intruder gained entry
to our system, and proceeded to wipe out everything. The
FBI came into the case, and spoke to our webmaster, Eric
Garris, but aside from this one contact we never heard from
them again. So much for the government's much-vaunted concern
for "terrorism" on the Internet.
SECRETARY
OF CYBERSPACE
Pontificating
before the "SafeNet 2000 Summit," a conference organized
by Microsoft, Clarke recommended that the next president
create a new cabinet position, a "a government-wide chief
information officer" (the Geek-in-chief?) who would require
Senate confirmation: in effect, the Secretary of Cyberspace.
Perhaps they could make it a subdivision of the State Department,
although the CIA is sure to stake its claim. In his speech,
Clarke emphasized the coziness
of the government and the hi-tech crowd, and the AP
reporter's description of what he had to say is shocking
in its blunt matter-of-fact-ness:
"Another
way to improve security throughout the Internet is to create
secure lines of communication between the technology industry
and the government, Clarke said. That way, they could share
information about hackers and viruses without worrying about
the public learning about it. Clarke said the plan would
require an exemption from the Freedom
of Information Act."
HACKERS
– YOU'RE IN THE ARMY, NOW!
Yes,
let's keep everything a secret from the very people we are
supposedly protecting from another "Pearl Harbor": after
all, we don't want to have to worry about answering too
many inconvenient questions, such as: what
about America's own capacity
to conduct a "cyber-war"? Clarke also announced that
the Clinton administration is setting up a special scholarship
program for aspiring American cyber-warriors – $25,000
goes to young recruits for each year they agree to go to
sign up with Uncle Sam. What is this but a recruiting program
for aspiring young hackers who want to go "legit" while
still putting their talents to good use?
SINISTER
ALLIANCE
What
is truly sickening is that Clarke was not alone is calling
for this sinister goverment-industry partnership in "policing"
the Internet. According to the AP article, "others at the
conference expressed the same notion." One Harris
Miller, president of the Information
Technology Association of America, announced the creation
of a nonprofit consortium of 18 companies ready to answer
Clarke's clarion call. In defense of this highly secretive
cartel-like
organization, Miller said:
"You'll
want to have the ability to share high-level intelligence
on an anonymous basis, without believing it's going to show
up in an AP article the next day."
LORDS
OF CYBERSPACE
But
what is Miller afraid of? Exposure is the worst enemy of
the criminal, and this is especially true of the hacker,
who goes to great lengths to skillfully hide his or her
true identity. If the Cyberspace Cartel is not engaging
in illegal and/or unethical activities, then why
this fear of public scrutiny? And don't give me that "national
security" mantra – that's the same line they handed
out during the sixties, when the US government illegally
spied on and disrupted numerous antiwar and other opposition
political groups, and nobody is going to buy it this time
around. The arrogance of these would-be Lords of Cyberspace
is really breathtaking – they actually believe they
can suck up all the government subsidies they can swallow
and not have to answer to the public in any way.
BIG
BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU
And
always, it seems, these sorts of operations are carried
out in the name of "safety" – not to mention protecting
the right of "privacy" – how's that for sheer
gall? The biggest fear in everyone's mind is not
that some company will get a lock on our individual buying
habits, and lure us into online orgies of conspicuous consumption,
but that the federal government will generate its own database
of information on virtually every US citizen, an electronic
dossier containing everything, from your social security
number to your political opinions, including whether or
not you have chosen to exercise your Second Amendment rights.
What I want to know is: who will protect us from our protectors?
GENESIS
OF A BROMIDE
Trenchantly
summing up Clarke's song-and-dance, Crypt
Newsletter defined the "Pearl Harbor"-in-cyberspace
syndrome rather succinctly.
"Electronic
Pearl Harbor (or 'EPH'): a bromide popularized by Alvin
Toffler-types, ex-Cold War generals, assorted corporate
windbags and hack journalists, to name a few. EPH is meant
to signify a nebulous electronic doom always looming over
U.S. computer networks. In the real world, it's a cue for
the phrase 'Watch your wallet!' since those wielding it
are usually doing so in an attempt to convince taxpayers
or consumers to fund ill-defined and/or top secret projects
said to be aimed at protecting us from it. It has been seen
thousands of times since its first sighting in 1993."
Do
we really need a government-appointed commander-in-chief
of cyberspace? No, no, a thousand times no!
The whole position should be abolished as an unwarranted
intrusion by the federal government into a heretofore relatively
free arena. No doubt Clarke, a Clinton appointee, thought
he was addressing Al Gore with his policy recommendations:
but Dubya, who once unsuccessfully sued
a satirical anti-Bush website – "Freedom ought
to have limits," was W's comment – seems clueless when
it comes to this subject, and positively hostile to the
civil liberties aspects of web regulation. In the name of
the holy war against "terrorism," it is easy to see the
Bushies expanding this Clintonian initiative instead of
abolishing it.
A
NOTE TO MY READERS
As
I will be on vacation by the time you read this, any further
developments in the Gore coup attempt since December 15
will not be covered in this column. I'll be back in time
for the New Year: but, never fear, I've written a few columns
in advance to keep you amused. So stay tuned – and
have a happy holiday.
