Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 335
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, August 18 1999 Volume 01 : Number 335
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] more on governments, individuals and businesses
Re: [netz] .. Defense?....
Re: [netz] Re: The Internet way
Re: [netz] more on governments, individuals and businesses
Re: [netz] more on governments, individuals and businesses
Re: [netz] more on governments, individuals and businesses
Re: [netz] more on governments, individuals and businesses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 15:21:23 +0200
From: "Jamal Shahin" <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk>
Subject: [netz] more on governments, individuals and businesses
I thought that some of you might find the following interesting. I receive
these news messages daily (I think). Since I don't have decent web access
here, I can only post the headlines and the urls for you to view.
>From www.silicon.com:
<snip>
*IOCA SET TO STING CORPORATE IT*: Proposals to allow government
agencies to eavesdrop on Internet and satellite communications may hurt
corporate IT departments as well as ISPs...
http://www.silicon.com/a32191
*EU SAYS 'NO NEW ECOMMERCE TAXES'*: The European Commission has
confirmed that it has no plans to exert new tax regimes on Internet
transactions... http://www.silicon.com/a32192
<snip>
*NET SHIFTS POWER FROM GOVERNMENT TO BUSINESSES*: The balance
of power between government and industry is likely to shift dramatically in
favour of business, according to Web visionary Esther Dyson...
http://www.silicon.com/a32194
<snip>
Does government protection extend to "eavesdropping"? When does
protection infringe upon our civil liberties?
If governments don't exert tax regimes on the Internet (ie. take something
from the Internet) then why should they protect it?
If governments don't have any power in cyberspace, then how *can they
protect it?
Why? How can? What limits? These are three questions that must be asked
when talking about governments and cyberspace.
Of course, this takes into account that we know what we mean by
government; cyberspace; limits; protection; civil liberties etc..
As always, best regards,
Jamal
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:27:35
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>
Subject: Re: [netz] .. Defense?....
At 10:34 AM 8/18/99 +0200, you wrote:
>I hope that this provides some interesting ground for a discussion of ideas.
>Thanks John for raising these points. I sincerely hope that this discussion
>will move on to better times.
>
>Looking forward to constructive correspondence.
>
There are two documents that you may find helpful on this subject. There
is a link at:
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/war.htm
Nuclear Crisis Management and Information Warfare
Military analysts and academic experts in security studies have
envisioned a post-Cold War world dominated by a "Revolution in Military
Affairs" based on high-tech conventional weapons and dominant knowledge
of the wartime environment.[1] The same people often have assumed that
the evolutionary development of nuclear weapons and their delivery
systems is on an entirely different trajectory than that projected for
information-based, "Third Wave" warfare and weapons.[2] Nuclear and
other weapons of mass destruction are the past; information-based,
non-nuclear weapons, in this vision, are the future of war. This
assumption of entirely separate gene pools for nuclear weapons of mass
destruction and for information warfare may be incorrect for some kinds
of situations, however, including crises between nuclear-armed states.
The two apparently antithetical kinds of weapons may come together to
create a new and potentially terrifying synthesis under the "right"
political conditions.
For present purposes, information warfare can be defined as activities
by a state or non-state actor to exploit the content or processing of
information to its advantage in time of peace, crisis, or war, and to
deny potential or actual foes the ability to exploit the same means
against itself.[3] This is intended as an expansive, and permissive,
definition, although it has an inescapable bias toward military- and
security-related issues. Information warfare can include both cyberwar
and netwar. Cyberwar, according to John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, is
a comprehensive, information-based approach to battle, normally
discussed in terms of high-intensity or mid-intensity conflicts.[4]
Netwar is defined by the same authors as a comprehensive,
information-based approach to societal conflict.[5] Cyberwar is more the
province of states and conventional wars; netwar, more characteristic of
non-state actors and unconventional wars.[6]
This article is organized as follows. First, I explain why the issue of
nuclear deterrence remains significant after the Cold War. Second, I
discuss what governments must do in order to perform successfully the
crisis management function and the complexity inherent in accomplishing
these tasks. Third, I identify some of the ways in which information
warfare may increase the difficulty of accomplishing those tasks
necessary to reduce or eliminate the risks of failed crisis management,
with attention to the special character of crises between nuclear-armed
states.[7] Fourth, I acknowledge that information warfare cannot be done
away with, and is in some cases a desirable option for US policymakers.
Therefore, the lion of infowar must be made compatible with the lamb of
nuclear deterrence (or is it the reverse?).
MORE...
and
Countering the New Terrorism RAND [.pdf]
Countering the New Terrorism, a new 153-page book published by RAND, has
recently been made available online. The book contains four chapters
that address the changes, trends, and implications of the new terrorism.
The introductory chapter, written by Ian O. Lesser, overviews the
changes in terrorism in a changing world. The second chapter, "Terrorism
Trends and Prospects," by Bruce Hoffman, looks at trends in
international terrorism. Chapter three, "Networks, Netwar, and
Information-Age Terrorism," by John Arquilla, David Ronfeldt, and
Michele Zanini, examines the special problem of terrorism in the
information age. The final chapter, "Countering the New Terrorism:
Implications for Strategy," also by Lesser, suggests how to meet
terrorist challenges to US interests. The book also includes three
figures, one table, an index, and a foreword by Brian Michael Jenkins.
Each part of the online book is provided as an individual .pdf file.
[AO]
>From the Scout Report, Copyright Internet Scout Project 1994-1998.
On-line Learning Series of Courses
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/course.htm
Member: Association for International Business
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ _/
_/ John S. Walker _/
_/ Publisher, CSS Internet News (tm) _/
_/ (Internet Training and Research) _/
_/ PO Box 57247, Jackson Stn., _/
_/ Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8P 4X1 _/
_/ Email jwalker@hwcn.org _/
_/ http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker _/
_/ _/
_/ "To Teach is to touch a life forever" _/
_/ On the Web one touch can reach so far! _/
_/ _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: The Internet way
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) wrote:
> Respect does not make an elite (read your Bible); privilege does.
Well, I guess what I meant was that having been highly respected
technical innovators, they became priviledged when the Internet became
popular.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 13:24:54
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>
Subject: Re: [netz] more on governments, individuals and businesses
At 03:21 PM 8/18/99 +0200, you wrote:
>Does government protection extend to "eavesdropping"? When does
>protection infringe upon our civil liberties?
This has been going on for years. See:
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/war.htm
Echelon, GLOBAL SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM
The Convoluted Terminology of Information Warfare
Rise of the TEMPEST, monitoring in the Real World
>
>If governments don't exert tax regimes on the Internet (ie. take something
>from the Internet) then why should they protect it?
We are already taxed indirectly for Internet use. Look at how the cost
for basic telephone service has increased over the last 10 years.
>
>If governments don't have any power in cyberspace, then how *can they
>protect it?
In this case I am talking about state sponsored attacks.
>
>Why? How can? What limits? These are three questions that must be asked
>when talking about governments and cyberspace.
>
>Of course, this takes into account that we know what we mean by
>government; cyberspace; limits; protection; civil liberties etc..
>
>As always, best regards,
>
>Jamal
>
On-line Learning Series of Courses
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/course.htm
Member: Association for International Business
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ _/
_/ John S. Walker _/
_/ Publisher, CSS Internet News (tm) _/
_/ (Internet Training and Research) _/
_/ PO Box 57247, Jackson Stn., _/
_/ Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8P 4X1 _/
_/ Email jwalker@hwcn.org _/
_/ http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker _/
_/ _/
_/ "To Teach is to touch a life forever" _/
_/ On the Web one touch can reach so far! _/
_/ _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:23:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] more on governments, individuals and businesses
"Jamal Shahin" <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk> wrote:
>I thought that some of you might find the following interesting. I receive
>these news messages daily (I think). Since I don't have decent web access
>here, I can only post the headlines and the urls for you to view.
>*NET SHIFTS POWER FROM GOVERNMENT TO BUSINESSES*: The balance
>of power between government and industry is likely to shift dramatically in
>favour of business, according to Web visionary Esther Dyson...
>http://www.silicon.com/a32194
Esther Dyson is far from a visionary when it comes to the Internet,
and since the Web is part of the Internet, the description is
self serving hype, not based on any actuality.
>If governments don't have any power in cyberspace, then how *can they
>protect it?
The question you raise is interesting.
But perhaps if you look at my recent paper on the issue of
"interface" there will be some perspective from that.
Computer Science and Government: ARPA/IPTO (1962-1986)
Creating the Needed Interface
URL: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/5106/1.html
Also my paper about the change from the old ARPANET protocol
NCP to the Internet protocol TCP/IP in Jan 1983 and the
subsequent split of the ARPANET into two different but connected
and communicating networks, ARPANET and MILNET as the earliest
Internet is hopefully a conceptual model to understand the Internet
and why Dyson is wrong in her hyping for going back to a single
controlled one net rather than an Internet.
An Internet is a internetworking of diverse networks so they
can do the minimum necessary to be able to communicate with
each other. For this to happen there has to be a support for
the diversity of these networks and for the fact that each
is created to meet its own conditions.
This was a development that occurred as a result of the
recognition that there was a needed interface between the
scientists who worked with the DOD as part of ARPA and
the government which was the DOD.
Thus interfacing was something that government was capable of
recognizing as a problem and the computer scientists working
with government as part of government could provide for.
Dyson is *not* understanding this crucial aspect of the Internet
when she talks about "commercial" as "commercial" strives to
meet its own profit making obligations, *not* to provide for
an interface with diversity.
Also she doesn't even recognize that the web is part of the
Internet, but seems it as a single net, a commercenet.
But commercenets were tried and they couldn't link up the
diversity necessary to make a global network that was
encouraging of the diversity of peoples and countries of the
world. Computerserve tried to do what it could but it
didn't grown to be what the world needed, thought it was
the commercenet model. But the Internet with its conceptual
framework of "open architecture" did grow to be what the
world welcomed.
So Dyson wants to take us backwards to what will disconnect
people, rather than forward to a broader global Internet.
And for the broader global internet the question of what is
the role that governments need to play has to be explored
and instead Esther has an answer.
>Of course, this takes into account that we know what we mean by
>government; cyberspace; limits; protection; civil liberties etc..
The role of government also includes the support for the computer
science that is needed to continue to grow the Internet.
It isn't a finished entity, nor an entity a company can
make possible - it is a scientific entity.
Also there was a paper recently made available online about
the harm that *no taxes* on the Internet will have on
society as it will discourage normal businesses and instead
give an advantage to those entities with no overhead, etc.
This policy hasn't been examined and when I went to Congress
in March, a staffer said that currently the problem they
face is that big corporate entities bring Congressfolk laws
to pass and the people in Congress don't have any idea what
the effect of those laws will be because they don't understand
the Internet.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 21:59:33 +0200
From: "Jamal Shahin" <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [netz] more on governments, individuals and businesses
Thanks Ronda,
I hope that Ms Dyson doesn't call herself a "Web visionary", but that this
was just editorial licence! And besides, she does have a say in how the
future of the Internet is to be determined, and so visionary in one sense,
might be accurate.. ;)
As to your point about Internet (non-) taxation, I think that "new tax
regimes" means (without actually having access to the site) that taxes will
be carried out as per normal transactions. The WTO in a report written last
year [titled, surprisingly enough: _E-Commerce and the Role of the WTO_]
clearly stated that not to tax transactions on the Internet would not be
acceptable, but that to formulate a procedure to tax these cyber-
transactions would take a lot of discussion; I think this happened in the US
as well, hence the e-commerce tax moratorium (I suppose, but I think that
the reason given was to allow e-commerce to have a boost, wasn't it?).
Governments are confused with what to do about *all the issues that the
Internet raises, and so rely on neo-liberal logic to graciously hand the cap
of responsibility to corporations and individuals. Would we want it any
other way?
I don't think this can be so. We either let governments roll the Internet in
red-tape (if the US controls the development of the Internet *and its
infrastructure, then so must the Chinese, the Indians, the Canadians..
[these are picked at random, before someone gets upset]), or we let
governments work with global structures that are based on trade (and
therefore the logic of neo-liberalism, or is it the other way round?).
But if (as you say) Congresspeople don't understand the Internet, then
why *should we let them have control?!
Some more questions from an enquiring mind...
Is TCP/IP "open architecture"? The reason I ask is that the IP addressing
system is *not infinite, is it? This means that there *is a limit to the number
of computers that can be connected to the Internet at one time. Or am I
confusing open architecture with infinite resource?
Does anyone know the reason why OSI was not introduced (as from my
basic understanding, it is actually more "appropriate" as a *global comms.
infrastructure)??
You wrote:
> Also she doesn't even recognize that the web is part of the Internet, >
> but seems it as a single net, a commercenet.
Please explain.. I'm confused. I understand that Internet means "Inter-
networking", and that as well as crossing different platforms, networks etc.
it also crosses different "applications" (email, ftp, rlogin, www etc.). I
therefore understand when you say that Ms Dyson "doesn't even
recognise that the web is part of the Internet". But the web isn't a single
net. I'm sure that Ms Dyson doesn't think that all electronic commerce can
be carried out through Netscape or (mon Dieu!) Internet Explorer.. and I
think that you'll find that she places an emphasis on email as well.
I recently spoke to an official in a large software/ hardware firm which
participates in many EU Research and Technology projects. They apply for
EU funding to carry out research that the EU sees as necessary. They get
the funding, they do the research, they get "society points" for releasing
the work into the public domain. They also do their own private research,
and maintain IPRs (difficult in this day and age, I guess). They sell the
products of this research for profit.
This is the reality of the situation: commercial interests are working with
government interests as their interests collide in the Information Age.
What happens to Joe Normal is another matter.
My question:
Should this happen? Is this disconnecting us from the Internet?
Jamal
- --
http://www.internetstudies.org/
http://www.hull.ac.uk/eurstuds/
tel: +39(0)348 794 6568
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] more on governments, individuals and businesses
"Jamal Shahin" <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk> wrote:
> Is TCP/IP "open architecture"? The reason I ask is that the IP
> addressing system is *not infinite, is it? This means that there *is
> a limit to the number of computers that can be connected to the
> Internet at one time. Or am I confusing open architecture with
> infinite resource?
You are correct that the number of computers that can be assigned a
unique IP address is constrained by the size of the IP address field.
That is currently 32 bits. IPv6 addresses are 128 bits.
A more practical consideration is that addressing architecture must be
aligned with network topology in order for routing to scale, using
known routing algorithms. Thus there is a need to allocate addresses
in accordance with the layout of the network topology. This is part
of the reason why ARIN is rationing IP addresses. However, some
people object to their policies for various reasons.
> Does anyone know the reason why OSI was not introduced (as from my
> basic understanding, it is actually more "appropriate" as a *global
> comms. infrastructure)??
Basically, when it came to running implementations, there weren't any
that worked on a large-scale basis. TCP/IP implementations worked on
a large-scale basis, so they were used.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #335
******************************
