Vance's CALL resources page | esl_home index
Return to Papyrus News Archive Main Page

Papyrus News
more on netwar

One of the great ironies of the current situation is that while Osama Bin Laden's "Al Queda" network is, on the one hand, trying to tear down the modern information society, it is, on the other hand, the archetype of a modern network. With all sorts of loose cells, various forms of horizontal networking, lack of a strict hierarchy, communication through a variety of advanced media, it's the perfectly structured organization to survive and thrive in today's world (which is undoubtedly one of the reasons it's been so "successful" in its own despicable way). Well, how do you destroy a network? Yes, you try bombs when necessary, but they don't always work well. Could you destroy the Internet, for example, with a bomb? Probably not -- but you could destroy it with a well-designed virus. In other words, biological means are sometimes more effective for attacking networks. This was basically the thrust of the Washington Post link I sent out this morning (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41015-2001Sep16.html).

Anyway, Miguel Marcos of Madrid sent an interesting response to the Washington Post article that I thought I'd pass on (with his permission, below). Additional comments (or links to other writings along a similar vein) are welcome. (Note as well his link mid-stream to an also interesting Observer article.)

Mark ----------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 23:18:50 +0200 To: Mark Warschauer <markw@uci.edu> From: Miguel Marcos <mmarcos@computer.org> Subject: Re: [pn] tech/network/cyberwar links (and a note)

Mark, hi. (Love Papyrus News BTW). On that WashPost article, I was actually tempted to write Joel but I figure someone else probably already emailed the same comments I'm going to make. All these ideas on how to target such an elusive, structurally different enemy are interesting and I'm sure can be applied but they're double-edged swords: they can be applied in both directions, and can come back to haunt us. I have some (incomplete) thoughts on this.

• The group(s) targeted to be network-analyzed can avoid using network technology completely to communicate (I haven't read much on how they communicate, do you have any references? I have found this to be an outstanding article: http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,552739,00.html, they apparently use email)
• They can build fake "honey pots" and other networks to throw off a wrong scent
• They can use non-US created encryption schemes to encrypt their communication (which makes silly any US-based law requiring a back door. They appear to have some well-educated people within the organization).
• Network analyzers like the one Stephenson talks about require some intense human labor due to the fact that many of the network members may not use email/web. Information culled through non-digital channels requires an army of data entry clerks to enter them into a database. Then there's the the language issue described next.
• I'm curious about the language issue: aren't there a variety of dialects at least, if not, languages spoken amongst all of the people in these organizations? I'm assuming this since they're spread around the world. The language analysis capabilities that exist may not be good enough to apply such analysis. Plus you would need technology experts well versed in those languages as well.
• The probable quick adaptability of these groups, because of their viral structure, means that any analysis and breaking of encryption may have to be done really fast in order to be valuable. I'm assuming that once they get wind that we have something that is successful at locating important people in the organization they will respond with some structural change to counteracts.
• Any technology based on tracking, like the "honey pot" (not such a new idea anyway, the security world has been using this concept for a while) can be used by non-terrorists to capture all sorts of personal information. Of course, there is nothing to stop them from doing this right now, but if we encourage the building of these technologies, they will get into the wrong hands inevitably. Software is the king of replication and malleability. Goodbye to many of our credit card numbers and the trust in electronic transactions.

On and on. I've never read Garreau's stuff and, indeed, he seems to be well connected and has a good understanding of technology. I'm tempted to read his writings on cities (I love Lewis Mumford). I just get turned off, especially in such a sensitive time as this, by articles that propose solutions and just seem to look at the good side without considering the potential negative effects.

Getting to the heard of the terrorists is a human problem, and to get to these people will require human skills. I think we should also be analyzing why these people are doing these things. What drives an individual to perform such an act? Doesn't it seem we are missing an opportunity here to break out of our shell and learn what the other half thinks, how they live, why they do things? With this knowledge we learn what it is that would help them break out of the mindframe they have.

There is a large factor at play in many of these countries that is dependent on lack of education, lack of health care, poverty. If the US government continues with foreign policies supporting countries who flagrantly violate principles the US govt is protecting in our country, what else can happen but more of the same? In addition, the people in the US need to learn about the outside world. The bulk of Americans are generous, good people, hard working, innovative. But they are mighty ignorant of world outside the borders. Look at the death of that poor Sikh, the story of the Brazilian student beat up in CT, what can be the source of that other than ignorance? The bulk of Americans don't seem to pay much attention to foreign policy, they are too complacent.

I hate that this happened. I lived in NYC 13 years before moving to Madrid, Spain (a country quite familiar with terrorism and its ravages). in June. I dearly love NYC for what I learned, the people who live there, the energy the city breathed, the opportunities I had, the variety of experiences and culture. When this happened, I felt nothing short of the experience of a death in the family, so emotionally invested was I in the "The City". I remember some members of my family elsewhere in the US refused to visit me because they thought NYC was the Tower of Babel, danger everywhere, bad people, crime all over. It really hurt me. I feel empty inside and don't know what to make of what happened. I shudder to think of the people who are suffering the incident firsthand and what they are going through.

In spite of all this, I would like this to be an opportunity for the country to grow, to learn, to overcome the biggest weakness: self-complacency (self-obsession as well, as Dave Winer states.) Such is the atmosphere, though, that I fear the wrath of many Americans for having opinions like this, based on what I have read and seen, especially the type of language I hear ("dead or alive like in the West"?. At this moment, the new services are reporting US military aircraft flying to the middle east.

BTW, Jose Saramago wrote a wonderful article in El Pais here in Spain a couple of days ago about what people have been capable of doing "in the name of God" throughout history. It's in Spanish, I've been looking for a translation but haven't found it. If I do I'll pass it on.

Miguel Marcos --

Use the navigator at the top of this page or your browser's BACK button to return to a previous page

For comments, suggestions, or further information on this site, contact Vance Stevens, webmaster. Regarding content of Papyrus-News, contact Mark Warschauer.

Last updated: September 21, 2001 in Hot Metal Pro 6.0