Piper Treece's weblog

omeone notable once said, “People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid.” This sentiment seems particularly to apply when defending the First Amendment rights in regards security based initiatives.

Since the discovery of a secret presidential authorization to eaves-drop on American citizens as one effort in the War on Terror, the American public has reacted vehemently to government interference with personal liberties such as freedom of speech and search and seizure. The security perspective admits that the lack of defining capabilities and desired outcomes has been to the detriment of several initiatives which would have greatly assisted intelligence and counterterrorism analysts in their daily jobs. Still, the focus tends to be on invasion of privacy and the government going into places they are not allowed because standard law has been extrapolated to cyberlaw. Noting the quotation above, can we not think of ways around this?

It is frustrating to see initiatives, acts, bills, actions all deaded because of the ACLU, or public outcry. This is sleazy and probably more back-handed than allowed, but can’t these freedoms be gone around as they have in the past? For instance, there is much controversy surrounding the reading of emails – and there is a whole, long process that must be enacted in order to access and read emails of a suspected terrorist, or other potential convict. Still, like in the real world, all mail providers have a ‘Trash Bin’. Places to put discarded pieces of information so that it doesn’t clutter your life. Why is it not possible to just read trash bins? If it is perfectly legal to seize someone’s trash once it has been put to the curb, then why cannot this be the case in cyber-space? Any good investigator or analyst would be able to put pieces together just the same in the real world as the virtual realm. Instead of the security wonks fighting head on with public at large and the ACLU, they should start thinking out of the box to find creative solutions which are already legal and translate them to the virtual world. It’s a compromise – analysts get access to data legally without infringing on privacy on personal issues.

Posted by Piper at 12:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Those academics or writers that argue Hollywood films only instill improbable fear in the masses should do their research. In doing so, they will come to understand that reality is often scarier than we would like to admit.

Live Free or Die Hard, an American action flick specializing in unrealistic and too many fight scenes, still illustrates the chaos and physical damage that can be caused by a cyber attack. Still, it is Hollywood – and the question begs to be asked: how much of this post-apocalyptic tale is based in reality? Bogus, right? A ‘fire cell’ described by the young hacker in the movie as a three tiered attack against a nation’s defense and military, the financial sector and then the infrastructure such as necessary utilities seems over dramatized and something solely schemed by an imaginative screenwriter. In Countering cyber war, the authors argue otherwise as they describe different levels of cyber war. One level is disturbingly detailed as:

More serious, and perhaps more likely, than limited cyber war is what can be termed unrestricted cyber war, [it] has three major characteristics. First,…[there are] no distinctions between the military and civilian targets…Second,…[there are] physical consequences and casualties…Third, the economic and social impact – in addition to the loss of life – could be profound.

While this description seems to feed the public desire for worst case scenarios, it is still conceivable that the reality is not that bad. Being innocent and having faith in higher beings and our great nation, we, Americans, know that our government is there protecting us and that everything is planned and any such grand attacks are well prepared for. Sadly, this is not the case. PBS’s Frontline did an expose revealing that we can only hope our infrastructure capabilities and utility companies are as well secured as they are in a dumb, ridiculous movie. Due to a couple of serious and successful attacks in the aftermath of 9/11, there seems to be some progress being made in regards to preparing for potential cyber attacks. Still, cyber security advancement in preventing or thwarting attacks of large scale seems to be lacking; and further frustrating the issue is the continuing conflict between the public administrators and the private corporations as no one seems willing to fund such protection.

Posted by Piper at 01:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While it has been over a month since really making headlines (China hacks US?) the topic of cybersecurity, or thwarting of cyberthreats, has be consistent over the past few years. And like so many other security quandaries, the government is the most prominent actor in that it will be the focus for a majority of the attacks and national secrets are the only aspects worth protecting. Still, others thankfully remind us that this world is not operating in the old nation-state schema; and that there many other evolving aspects to cybersecurity…

Having an interest in defense and security is great – it is like looking at the world in grayscale: there is some black, some white and a whole lot of grey in between. While there are always uncertainties, there are two clear sides to the argument of cyberwarfare or cybersecurity. One feels that this is the next large battlefield, ripe with opportunities for both national military forces as well as rogue guerilla groups. The other believes that the recent attacks again American military are just hype and while there is always potential danger, the real world battles and security dilemmas will reign supreme.

Still, the most innovative thinkers though still dream in Technicolor showing us there hundreds of variations. Newly Nasty: Defences against cyberwarfare are still rudimentary argues cybersecurity is too concerned with defending national secrets and really needs to start focusing its efforts on deterring perpetrators who threaten daily internet activity. Using the recent case study of Estonia, the article made a very compelling point. How to not only prepare for such a disturbance and attack, but how to deter it in advance, or how to prosecute the violators raises many unanswered questions. This complex perspective is something that requires further exploration as some key conventions were noted which may have the beginnings of sound policy that need to be reawakened in the light of such recent events such as Estonia and the US Pentagon; and in the frame of mind that the internet is another world in which to wage wars.

Posted by Piper at 08:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While this question has been dodged over the past few weeks, I am now inescapably face-to-face with it. Perhaps, it is best to commence with my intentions in enrolling in this class; and hope that discourse will reveal a clearer path for my entries.

Technology fascinates me. Frankly, I know quite little about the subject – technically speaking. Being surrounded by it in both personal and professional life makes it ever more alluring to learn more about hardware, software, the Internet and its workings, and any numerous topics within the general realm of Information Technologies. I am slowly learning more about the networked environment in which I operate daily; and about all the miniscule tidbits of information which seem to be common knowledge among all my peers. Still, technology must be guided by users; and everyone, for all practical purposes, must employ technology for everyday tasks. This dynamic of continual interaction and its implications for individuals and society is really what motivates me to learn more.

My background is in the social sciences. The hard numbers of engineering, or physics, or anything of the like is somewhat baffling to me. Thus, trying to fully understand how blogs link to one another and what it means for other blogs requires much dedicated effort. While I like to consider myself generally bright, there are some topics which take more time for me to grasp in their entirety. I much prefer to look at the user end to determine correlations between the humanistic aspects and how they relate to human interactions with technology, and particularly, individual behaviors within cyberspace. The research of social psychology and the internet began almost at the same time as I was born. This is striking for someone who remembers the first proliferation of instant messaging and email access to suburban America; especially when thinking of how ‘connected’ the US and much of the world is these days and the numbers with internet access are only projected to increase. The internet has changed how people communicate and interact with one another. It enables them to find others like themselves to reinforce uncertain feelings or thoughts; and occasionally encourages behavior which is disapproved of in real life. While this of course raises the questions of regulation and prompts general rhetoric, there are so many individual aspects which could potentially affect not only the virtual realm and how users interact in it, but also how users begin to interact with the real world.

Additionally, my studies have often revolved around international and historical security issues. A field that has become more paramount in the advent of 9/11. Much of the appeal in this area lies in the cat and mouse game which exists in this field; and how to always gain the upper hand. So, knowing more about the enemy is key to having an advantage. There some compelling, yet unstudied, proclamations that the Internet being so prominent in daily lives is having cultural affects, such as those noted above with increased propinquity with like-minded individuals, but also include notions of increased aggression and deception. This is something which literature has not as frequently touched upon – on how to guard against what we really do not know or understand. While it is easier to ban or limit those things which are already considered illegal and difficult to even attempt on the Internet, likewise it is tantalizing to think that culturally behavior may be adapting to this new cyberspace and then prepare of any of its implications.

Combining the above inclinations has hugely increased my curiosity in how antisocial behavior differs online versus off-line, if it does in fact differ; and what implications this could have in detecting or identifying cyber-threats, or even for the general population and how we interact both on-line and offline. I am struggling to find a way to tie this interest, or rough ideas, into how it will affect policy, law and politics; but yet, I feel that everything we have read is very much involved with the topic. I will continue to explore, and hopefully soon find the common link on which to focus my thoughts.

Posted by Piper at 07:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)