The New War on Cyber-Terror
No Comments »By agentOgden
I predicted several months ago that, in order to justify the revolutionary changes they have in store for the internet, the media/telecomms consolidation gods will declare a “War on Cyber-Terror” in which the user is the enemy. They will claim that measures must be taken to keep us all safe online, and protect critical databases and infrastructures from the “ever increasing threat” of “cyber-attacks.” Unfortunately, the changes made will have nothing to do with security, and everything to do with deciding for you (end-user) exactly how you are to be allowed to use your own technology.
The advantages of this approach, from the perspective of the media/telecomms monopolists, are many. Since the mechanisms of internet (and computers in general) are only understood by such a small percentage of people, it will be incredibly easy to mislead the masses on this issue — probably even easier than it was to convince them to believe in a “War on Drugs” and a “War on Terror,” which are examples of similar false-pretenses for other forms of fascism.
The first phase of this attack on the internet was the real and perceived increase of ‘identity theft,’ which has been conveniently nurtured and exploited by the very same interests. Now they’ve got everyone terrified of this scourge, but the solutions proposed are draconian at best, and will do nothing to prevent ‘identity theft’ from occurring — but rather, will actually make it easier for real hackers to steal more identities at once (not unlike how the War in Iraq increased the frequency of suicide bombings).
For example, a standardized federal or national ID card has been cited as a potential solution to the problem of identity theft. Well, I’m here to tell you that massive databases of peoples’ personal information are a black-market identity merchant’s wet dream! This is especially true then the entity charged with providing the network security for these systems are government bureaucracies, which can never be as effective as private sector corporations with cutting-edge infosec personnel (who actually have a stake in the protection of data, which the government does NOT).
Another component of this fearmongering campaign is the relentless repetition by the 24-hour news networks of the notion that children are literally being stalked and abducted as a direct result of the internet, and that the government must step in to protect them. And don’t forget that story about how a woman was sexually assaulted in her own home and the assailants posted video of it on Youtube… the spin of the story was basically about how “the internet raped this poor woman,” and how the web is a wild outlaw-zone that needs to be brought under the rule of law. Those are just two examples.
I also predicted, several months ago, that a string of cyber-attacks on high-profile military and government targets would be used to justify the fundamental changes that certain powers want to make in regards to how the internet works. We are starting to see this happen, but as we move forward, it is important for everyone to understand that these attacks do not necessarily have to be staged, like little Gulf of Tonkins. As any security consultant can tell you, the frequency of attempts to compromise any system with an internet footprint is incredible, and high-profile targets are no exception. The very minute that a computer is connected to the internet, it is under seige. So, if the Pentagon (for example) really wanted to be attacked, all they would have to do is let down their countermeasures for one moment. They could even have the luxury of choosing exactly which component or node of their intranet is to be compromised — to ensure a perceived threat but not a real one.
The internet is, by nature, nearly impossible to consolidate. It exists on millions of independently owned machines. However, the infrastructure that carries the data and ensures interoptibility across all ISPs is owned by a mere handful of corporations, worldwide. Even still, the thorough elimination of the free exchange of information on the internet would require a complete transformation of the Internet Protocols that make it all work. This will not be an easy thing to accomplish, and any proposed change to IP will be heavily scrutinized, and met with severe resistance from IT professionals and private corporations who like the internet just the way it is.
However, with the power of federal governments and the authority of supranational unions behind the proposed changes, the private sectors can be forced to comply. The internet-using masses must be made to feel threatened, so that they will support the changes proposed and enforced by these federal and supranational bodies. In this way, the ignorant masses can actually trump the vote of the experts, by use of the same Hegelian manipulations we have seen time and again.
The transformation will be gradual, not abrupt, but I predict that within 10 years the internet will be very different.
Peer-to-peer will not go away, but it will be strictly monitored and facilitated by a third party who will evaluate the legality and legitimacy of all shared content.
Software piracy will no longer be something that semi-savvy teenagers do get a free copy of the latest video game or editing tool, but will become a risky endeavor left to only the elite of the elite hackers. It will become much harder to get away with, and therefore far more lucrative for those willing to take the risks.
The trend we are seeing today, in which control over the use technology is being slowly taken back from the consumer, will continue so slowly and steadily that the average user will not even notice. Before long, people will not even remember how they used to dub audio cassettes, and record television on their VCRs. We are already being locked out of our own cellphones, DVRs DVD players, etc., and all the while the prices go up and the devices get smaller. The use of proprietary incompatibility to ensure that you can only buy your batteries, chargers and peripherals from one corporation (who then fixes the price for this exclusive hardware at 5000% over cost) has already reached epidemic and totally unacceptable levels, and people don’t seem to mind at all. In fact, they seem to think it’s pretty hip (just look at the success of Apple and Sony, two of the worst companies with regards to the engineering of incompatibility).
Perhaps worst of all, manufacturers are now making sure that anyone smart enough to try to unlock the potential of their device, by installing Linux on their cellphone for example, will actually break the device before they succeed. This is not because of any lack of expertise on the users part, but rather by very clever programming that renders the device useless if anyone tries to modify it for any purpose other than what the manufacturer intended (the iPhone is one example of this tactic.) This is counterproductive to human ingenuity and technological progress, and represents a dangerous trend going into the future.
As all of this begins to play out, the occurance of real cyber-attacks will not be reduced, but rather, increased, for any reduction or elimination of the threat would likewise eliminate the justification for the ‘countermeasures,’ which will surely become very unpopular.
The heyday of the phone phreaker has been over for years. There will soon be no more casual crackers, spammers, phishers, or wardrivers. There will be a sharp reduction in the number of kids trying out the latest exploit they read about in their quarterly issues of 2600 magazine. “Hacking” will no longer be something that Linux geeks do for a harmless bit of fun.
“Hacking” will soon become an exclusively hardcore criminal enterprise, and a very dangerous and difficult one. The overall number of real hackers will wane, but the quality of their skills and inventiveness will have to increase tenfold.
Welcome to your cyberpunk future, as written by William Gibson. It was only a matter of time.
RSS