The Future of the 'iPatriot Act'
Larry Lessig’s generous review of the Future of the Internet makes an interesting point:
“Whether a single event, or a coordinated event, whether intentional, or accidental, it is simply a matter of time before a catastrophic network event happens. And when it happens — think of it as a kind of i9/11 event, but the bad guys are not Al-Qaeda — will we be prepared for the inevitable iPatriot Act response? Are we better prepared than civil libertarians were when we were hit with the USA Patriot Act? Have we even framed the right debate?” First, will there be an ‘i9/11′, and second, will it prompt an ‘iPatriot Act’? The actual chances of a catastrophic network failure are pretty slim. But were one to occur, it would probably look a lot like the attacks on the DNS root servers in 2007. Here’s what happened:
The 13 Domain Name System (DNS) root servers record who controls the Top-Level Domains (’.com’, ‘.edu’, ‘.uk’, and so forth) and where. This file of information is quite small, and very few computers actually have to call upon the root servers to find the sites they’re looking for. But without them, the single Internet we’re used to would fracture, and computers would have no easy, reliable way to find the IP addresses they’re looking for.
On February 6, 2007, hackers issued a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack on the root servers, sending gigabytes of useless requests every minute in order to overload the roots and prevent them from responding to genuine Internet traffic. Such an attack was made possible only by harnessing the power of hundreds or thousands of ‘zombie’ computers infected with malicious bots.
The 2007 DDoS attack failed, however. Because the malicious network traffic was relatively easy to distinguish from genuine network traffic, and because most of the DNS root servers were able to distribute the requests over hundreds of component computers, only two of the 13 servers (each themselves made of dozens of computers) were affected. And this was the most successful such attack against the network. In order to noticeably disable network traffic, hackers would have to (in theory at least) destroy all thirteen servers.
All of this is to say that a catastrophic network failure, while possible, is unlikely. But that’s not to say there won’t be an ‘iPatriot Act’. In fact, we’re already seeing its development in agencies and hearings across the country, as regulators push policies that discourage open, generative products and encourage closed, tethered ones.
Take, for example, the Department of Homeland Security’s list of ‘best practices’ for software developers. Among the suggestions:
Don’t trust users: “Developers should assume that the environment in which their system resides is insecure. Trust, whether it is in external systems, code, people, etc., should always be closely held and never loosely given.”
Secure the end-points: “Attackers are more likely to attack a weak spot in a software system than to penetrate a heavily fortified component. For example, some cryptographic algorithms can take many years to break, so attackers are not likely to attack encrypted information communicated in a network. Instead, the endpoints of communication (e.g., servers) may be much easier to attack.”
In themselves these are not bad pieces of advice. But within DHS’s broader vision of online security, they indicate that the government considers safe technologies to be tethered technologies, and vice versa.
Take as further examples any of the current IP-enforcement laws working their way through Congress. H.R. 4279 would create an IP czar at the Department of Justice; S. 522 would create an entire ‘Intellectual Property Enforcement Network’; and S. 2317 would allow the Department of Justice to sue copyright infringers in civil as well as criminal court.
What’s interesting about these bills is that more often than not, Intellectual Property protection is packaged as consumer protection. In fact, just last month the Senate held a hearing entitled “Protecting Consumers by Protecting Intellectual Property”, in which witnesses and legislators advocated for the very bills discussed above.
What all of this amounts to is that agencies and officials are pushing increasingly closed systems of code and increasingly strict Intellectual Property regulations. Both of these encourage increasingly tethered appliances. We don’t need a catastrophic network failure to have an ‘iPatriot Act’: such an act is already in the works.
|
Spread the word  Stumble It! -  Digg it!
-  reddit
Latest Articles in: Big Brother/Orwellian
- Television: The Hidden Picture
- 14 Percent of U.S. Adults Can't Read
- Vets Sue CIA Over Mind Control Tests
- 2020: dawn of the 'intelligent' classroom
- Mental Intrusion at the Hands of Science and Law -- Are Our Minds Still Our Own?
- Big Brother CCTV (complete with CPS evidence kit) to spy on pupils aged four
- Researchers use ultrasonic pulses to control the brain
- Infant drugs shock
|
BEFORE YOU POST
|
Before posting please read our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.
Please note: InformationLiberation is neither liberal or conservative. When one takes the time to research the "liberal elite," whom the conservatives oppose, and the "conservative elite," whom the liberals oppose, one finds both "elite" are one and the same. "Liberal" or "Conservative" is not a substantive choice, it is only the carefully crafted illusion of a choice, for both parties come together when they are instructed to.
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson."
A letter written by FDR to Colonel House, November 21st, 1933
"Fifty men have run America, and that's a high figure."
Joseph Kennedy, father of JFK, in the July 26th, 1936 issue of The New York Times.
If you care to know who runs the world you live in, view these films. If you care not then I leave you with this quote to ponder:
"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution."
Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961
Audio - Transcript
|
|
|
FAIR USE NOTICE
|
|
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
|
About Us - Disclaimer
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill |
The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
Loose Change 2E: Nine Eleven... Was There A Conspiracy?
Operation Gladio: "One of the most secret programs that ever existed"
The Money Masters: How International Bankers Gained Control of America
Terror Storm: A History of False Flag Terrorism
Print
9/11 and the "American Inquisition"
The Last Roundup
A very revealing look into our planned future: Washington's Future, a History
Television and the Hive Mind
Global Gridlock: Complete and Total Control
Death of the Bees: GMO Crops and the Decline of Bee Colonies in North America
Anticipations of The New Republic: The Vision of H.G. Wells