Throughout history it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph.
–Haile Selassie
In The Digital Imprimatur, John Walker writes about his growing pessimism regarding the future of liberty and freedom of speech on the Internet. In a previous period (1994-1999) he was convinced that universal access to the Internet would provide a force to counteract against centralization and concentration of power in government and mass media acting to limit freedom of expression and unrestricted access to information. The Internet, Walker feels, if used properly, could actually roll back government and corporate encroachment on individual freedom by allowing information to get past barriers constructed by oppressive governments and around the gatekeepers of the mainstream media.
Walker states that Computers and the Internet, like all technologies, are a double-edged sword: whether they improve or degrade the human condition depends on how they are used and by whom. He points out that a large majority of computer related science fiction from 1950s through the dawn of the personal computer in the 1970s focused on the potential for centralized computer-administered societies to manifest forms of tyranny worse than any in human history. There is the risk that computers and centralized databases despite being adopted with the best of intentions may inadvertently lead to the emergence of a dystopia.
The advent of the personal computer has turned these dark scenarios inside-out. As Moore’s Law has continued to relentlessly progress, the power of computers has doubled at constant cost every two years. The vast majority of the computer power on Earth is in now the hands of individuals. The computer has become as decentralized as a television set. There is however a big difference between a computer and a television set. The television can only receive what broadcasters choose to air. The computer can be used to create and what is created can be easily exchanged with any other computer user anywhere in the world.
Personal computers that were originally isolated began almost immediately to self-organize into means of communication as well as computation. Walker feels that communication rather than computation is their principal destiny. Online services have decentralized communication among personal computer users resulting in the explosive growth of individual internet access in the latter part of the 1990s. The dream became a reality and now individuals were empowered to create and exchange all kinds of information, spontaneously form virtual communities and to do so in a totally decentralized manner free of any kind of restrictions or regulation apart from existing defined criminal activity. Walker feels that the very design of the Internet seemed technological proof against attempts to “put the genie back in bottle.” Authoritarian societies could restrict or attempt to filter Internet access but in doing so could render themselves less competitive against open societies with unrestricted access to information. Walker states that the Internet, like banned books, videos and satellite dishes, has a way of seeping into even the most repressive societies.
This explosive technological and social phenomenon began to trouble many institutions who saw it as reducing their existing control over the flow of information and the means of interaction among the people. All of a sudden “freedom of the press” wasn’t just something that applied to those who owned one -it was now near-universal. Media and messages which previously could only be disseminated to a limited audience at great difficulty and expense could now be made available around the world and at almost no cost. It could bypass the media and cross borders without customs, censorship or regulation.
Naturally attempts ensued by “people in charge” to try and recover some of the authority that they had so suddenly lost. There were attempts to restrict the distribution and/or use of encryption, content regulation such as the Computer Decency Act and the successful legal assault of Napster. Most of these attempts either failed or proved ineffective. The Internet “routed around them” –basically it found other ways of doing the same thing.
Walker feels that there are forces working to “put the Internet genie back into the bottle” and he is not as optimistic as he once was about the freedom of expression over the Internet. He feels that this may set the stage for an authoritarian political and intellectual dark age global in scope and self-perpetuating; a disempowerment of the individual which nullifies the very innovation and diversity of thought which have brought down tyrannies in the past.
The original design inherited by the Internet was a peer to peer format: any machine connected to the Internet could act as a client, server or neither –simply a “peer” of those with which it was connected. This was unique in that it was the first many-to-many mass medium. In the past technological innovations fell into two categories: The first one was by publishing (i.e. newspapers, magazines and books) and broadcasting (radio and television) which was a one-to-many mass medium. The numbers of senders was very small compared to their audience. Additionally the costs required to state up a new publication or broadcast station were substantial posing a significant obstacle. The secondary category which includes postal mail, telegram and telephone is a one-to-one medium –you can communicate with almost anybody in the world where the service exists but the communications are person to person. Prior to the Internet, no communication medium existed that allowed an individual to publish material to a global audience with minimal costs.
Basically this broke down the barriers that previously had existed to entry into the arena of ideas. Now an individual could attract an audience for their own work based purely on the merits and word of mouth. This peer-to-peer design also created new kinds of media: discussion boards, scientific preprint repositories, web logs with feedback from readers, collaborative open source software development, audio and video conferences, online auctions, music file sharing, open hypertext systems and multiple other kinds of spontaneous human interaction. This radical change took place in a relatively short period of time and had significant societal and economic impact. It proved upsetting to those investing in or basing their communication strategy on traditional media. Governments also previously did not have to worry about mass unsupervised data flowing across borders anonymously and securely, operating out of sight and beyond the traditional control of state security. As such, any organization can be expected to act to preserve and expand its power and not passively step aside. There has been consolidation among Internet infrastructure companies and increased governmental surveillance of activities on the Internet which is creating the potential to implement points of control onto an originally decentralized Internet. These points of control, Walker states, can be used for whatever purposes those who put them in place wish to achieve. Walker feels that the trend seems clear and that over the next five to ten years we will see significant efforts to “put the Internet genie back in the bottle” which will restore the traditional producer/consumer, government/subject relationships before the Internet disrupted them.
GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS IN CYBERSPACE
Stacy Davis writes in Computers and the Law (1995) that Internet providers are big business. She says that in America children use computers in school and then attempt to keep their parents up to date with the latest technology. The Internet provides quality information and entertainment but also has its dark side: pornography, hate speech, extreme political groups and a multitude of marginal or unpopular viewpoints. While it is true that the Internet offers something for everybody, there is usually someone who believes that nobody should have access to certain information. Congress is currently trying to pass legislation which seeks to regulate the Internet and possibly eliminate some of the more “dangerous” elements before, in there eyes, it rages out of control. There is however a fine line between regulation and oppression. Governments are finding ways to restrict the Internet access of individuals by controlling the essential hardware and software or even the service providers themselves. And they are doing it in a way that appears it is for our benefit and to protect us. Davis provides an overview of the tactics employed by other countries to restrict Internet access and asks: what methodology will the US government and Congress employ to deal with similar issues?
Davis notes that business is now regularly conducted on an international scale, and markets are therefore expanding and demanding better methods of communication. The Internet has been called the “most dangerous new technology” since it presents a challenge to autocratic regimes and threatens to break down the tight control traditionally exercised over their people. The notion of “virtual democracy” threatens countries such as Hong Kong, where there are strict censorship policies and where a permanent government trap on the telephone system is permissible under the law. Governments of nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iran are trying to closely monitor who has Internet access and what materials are available online. The regulation of flow of information in cyberspace however is much more difficult to control than traditional forms of communication.
In Saudi Arabia, where religious discussion and pornography are commonly subject to censorship, universities and hospitals are granted special permission for Internet access and all such email accounts are open to government inspection. This is an example of a government that is trying to achieve a balance between the desire to control the flow of information within its borders and the economic need to upgrade its technology keeping up with the “progress” of the Western world.
In Iran, the government went so far as to shut down the country’s only private Internet-linked firm. A prior message warned subscribers that all public mail had to comply with Islamic laws and traditions or they would risk losing service. It appears they were not kidding.
China also closely monitors electronic communication and threatens censorship of what they deem offensive material. The government can either cut the lines if officials do not approve of the material being downloaded or may repossess the modem used in the transaction. China also limits Internet access by charging exuberant access fees.
Canada has also attempted to censor information on the Internet. In 1993 Ontario courts issued a gag order prohibiting publication of information regarding to a sensational murder case. One student at the University had his computer account “locked” as punishment for defying the order.
Here in the US there is also great concern over the amount of objectionable material than can be accessed through the Internet. Although the government cannot repossess modems or other hardware if individuals transmit or download pornography any other material that can be considered “offensive” without creating an uproar, Congress is pushing the envelope to determine how it can most effectively wield its power against the wild and unwieldy flow of electronic information. The proposed goal of the new legislation is protect children from objectionable material. Despite this being a noble goal, it is important not to lose sight of the First Amendment and other fundamental values upon which the country was founded.
The Supreme Court in Miller v. California, developed a community standards test to determine if certain material is obscene. Under the test, the standard of obscenity is to be determined in the context on the local community surrounding the incident and not as a “national standard.” However, with regards to phone sex, the Court has upheld that if an audience is comprised of different communities having different local standards, the burden of compliance rests with the service provider. This decision lays the groundwork for the emergence of a national obscenity standard, but it does not speak to difficult issues unique to Internet communications. How are the boundaries of the Internet defined? Which country’s rules apply? Can the Internet even be regulated?
Congress is at present working on an amendment to the Communications Act of 1934. The Senate and House of Representatives passed dramatically different versions of the bill in 1995 and these different versions help to underscore the controversy concerning the extent of allowable government control over the free flow of information on the Internet.
The Senate bill was passed as an amendment to the Senate telecommunications bill. It criminalizes certain communications and authorizes fines exceeding $100,000 and up to 2 years in prison. Criminal communications include the use of any telecommunications device to knowingly transmit “any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent,” sent with the intent to annoy, harass, threaten or abuse another person. The bill is problematic in that there are no definitions offered to prevent the misuse of words such as “filthy” and “indecent,” no way for a person to know who will in fact receive information transmitted over the computer, and it violates the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and free expression. The use of the computer for purposes of communication has constructed an entirely new level of communication philosophy. Individuals can express thoughts and ideas under the guise of anonymity or through the use of pseudonym. One can assume a new identity in cyberspace. The downside is that there is no way to confirm a person’s true identity if the individual does not wish it to be known. As such there is no way to be certain of a factor such as the age of a potential audience. It would be unfair for the individual transmitting information to be penalized under these circumstances.
The fear of restrictions has forced commercial Internet service providers to self-regulate and this is causing chaos. For example, a list of banned words includes “breast.” Despite the fact it has obvious sexual connotation, its restriction has caused women’s group discussions on breast cancer and other medical discussions to come to a halt.
In August the House of Representatives passed an alternative to the Senate’s Communications Decency Act. This act authorizes the industry to set standards and to develop software to increase user control and filter out undesirable content. The House realizes that new technology calls for new laws. The House has amended the Communications Act of 1934 in supporting the use and development of online technology, not adding any new criminal penalties and placing ultimate control of information in the hands of users rather than government. It also expressly prohibits FCC regulation of the Internet.
The Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act encourages the computer industry and parents to monitor and control the access of children to available Internet materials. There are already a number of products on the market which offer parents a variety of choices for restricting access. With so many opportunities available, there is no compelling reason for government intervention at this time.
Davis feels that the Internet is new and there is no way of knowing if we have scratched the surface about what it has to offer. The Senate’s attempt to regulate and define appropriate conduct pertaining to the Internet is irresponsible at best. The Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act does not prematurely judge the internet and other computer services. The House has carved out a space for this technology and has thereby recognized its difference from other communication mediums. The US may find that efforts at government regulation will fail because of the intangible nature of the medium. Comprehensive monitoring of the Internet is not practical.
Davis feels that are two options to regulate objectionable material on the Internet: One, that nations will continue to come together and agree on standards of decency or two, the new filtering of programs offers people the opportunity to define their boundaries. This illustrates the concept of user-control. It delegates power to the individual and preserves First Amendment protections while reducing risks to children. The potential success of these programs can only be fully really in the absence of government restrictions. Davis concludes that with regards to the Internet, there is wisdom and there is trash and that the responsibility of sorting it all out should remain with the individual.
COPE
The US House passed the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE) on June 8, 2005. It did not take into consideration the meaningful neutrality provisions promoted by the diverse right-left www.savetheinternet.com coalition of public interest and business groups. The 152 to 269 vote coincides with a massive lobbying effort by telephone companies to enter the national television market and prevent preservation of network neutrality requirements.
Consumers Union Senior Policy Analyst stated, Special interest advocates from telephone and cable companies have flooded Congress with misinformation delivered by an army of lobbyists to undermine decades-long federal practice of prohibiting network owners from discriminating against competitors to shut out competition. Unless the Senate steps in, today’s vote marks the beginning of the end of the Internet as an engine of new competition, entrepreneurship and innovation.
The American public favors an open and neutral Internet and does not want gatekeepers taxing innovation and throttling the free market said Ben Scott, police director for Free Press. The House has seriously undermined access to information and democratic communication. Despite the revisionist history propagated by the telcos and their lobbyists, until last year, the Internet had always been a neutral network. It is the central reason for its overwhelming success. This issue is not about whether or not the government will regulate the Internet. It’s about whether consumers or cable and phone companies will decide what services and content are available on the Net.
The battle for Net Neutrality or otherwise “Internet freedom”now will move to the Senate where there is significantly stronger bipartisan support. Senators Snowe (R-Maine_ and Dorgan (D-N.D) have introduced the “Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2006” that enjoys the strong support from the SaveTheInternet coalition.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In the last three decades, the Internet has evolved from a research tool to an instrument progressing into the hands of elite interests controlling not only research of all types but
also information by concentrating power in the hands of a few thus limiting free citizen and productive individuals to mere subjects and consumers yielding punitive actions to those who do not accept compliance in accordance with the directives. We have at present 6.5 billion people living on the planet, 1 billion which possess computers which is homologous to Internet access. The concern rises to its height with a long track record of the government using personal information gathered in the name of national security from two red scares –the first in 1917 to 1920 and the second from the late 1940s to the mid 1950s including illegal wire taps from the Nixon era. American have struggled to find the right balance between individual rights and collective security. In an era where the technological capability of the government relentlessly increases, we must be weary of the drift towards a Big Brother government. Most people do not want to learn the truth for they fear it will breach their comfort zones. Somehow any evidence contradictory to their simple views is dealt with by ignoring it and pretending it will then go away. When this happens, America can be ruled with information control. The power of information reaches us constantly forming an image of the world and being told what to think about this created image of the world.
REFERENCES
Walker, John. The Digital Imprimatur: How big brother and big media can put the
Internet genie back in the bottle. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/ (2003).
Davis, Stacy. Government Regulation in Cyberspace: An International Concern.
http://law.buffalo.edu/Academics/courses/629/computer_law_policy_articles/CompLawPapers/davis.htm Computers and Law (1995).
WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 2006
Cybernetics: The theoretical study of communication and control processes in biological, mechanical, and electronic systems, especially the comparison of these processes in biological and artificial systems (From Dictionary.com)
Cybernetics: The science of communication and control theory that is concerned especially with the comparative study of automatic control systems (as the nervous system and brain and mechanical-electrical communication systems) (From Merriam-Webster online Dictionary)
U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
James Bradford writes in his article Big Brother is Listening in the April 2006 Atlantic Monthly that people express their most intimate thoughts in emails send there tax returns over the Internet, satisfy their curiosity and desires with Google searches, let their hair down in chat rooms, discuss every event over cell phones, make appointments with their BlackBerry’s and do business by computer in WiFi spots. He talks about today’s eavesdropping capability being beyond anything ever dreamt. The digital revolution has come as an explosion and the ability to scan tens of millions of electronic communications such as emails, faxes, instant messages, web searches, and phone calls can be done in relatively short periods of time. In this article he poses the question: what happens when the technology of espionage outstrips the law’s ability to protect ordinary citizens from it? There are alone 361 million internet users at present.
Dr. Luukanen-Kilden, former Chief Medical Officer of Finland notes that concerns of Mind control and cybernetic dates back to 1948 when Robert Weiner published a book called Cybernetics and that Yoneji Masuda, the “Father of the Information Society” in 1980 stated his concerns that our liberty is threatened Orwellian-style by cybernetic technology totally unknown to most people: technology that links the brains of people via implanted microchips to satellites controlled by ground-based supercomputers. Where 30 years ago these implants showed up on x-rays the size of one centimeter, subsequent ones shrunk to the size of a grain of rice. Every thought, reaction, hearing and visual observation causes a certain neurological potential, spikes, and patterns in the brain and its electromagnetic fields, which can now be decoded into thoughts, pictures and voices via remote monitoring system (RMS). The Washington Post reported in May 1995 that Prince William of Great Britain was implanted at age 12. Thus, if he were ever kidnapped, a radio wave with a specific frequency could be targeted to his microchip. The chip’s signal would be routed through a satellite to the computer screen of police headquarters, where the Prince’s movements could be followed and actually located anywhere in the world. What will happen when people are tempted by false premises to allow microchips into their bodies such as, for example, a microchip identity card?
Digital Angel Corporation
In May 2001 in Palm Beach FL and press release named Dr. Peter Zhou, President and Chief Scientist of Digital Angel Corporation, Innovator of the Year by Long Island Business News. Digital Angel Corporation has it headquarters in Saint Paul, Minnesota and represents the first ever combination of advanced biosensor technology and web-enabled wireless telecommunications linked to Global Positioning Systems (GPS). By utilizing advanced biosensor capabilities, Digital Angel will be able to monitor key body functions such as temperature and pulse and transmit this data, along with accurate location information, to a ground station or monitoring facility. In 2001 they were exploring a wide range of potential applications such as: 1. Monitoring location and medical condition of at-risk patients 2. Locating lost or missing individuals 3. Locating missing or stolen household pets 4. managing livestock and other farm-related animals 5. pinpointing location of valuble stolen property 6. managing the commodity supply chain 7. preventing the unauthorized use of firearms and 8. providing a tamper-proof means of identification for enhanced e-commerce security. This company focuses on a range of early warning alert, miniaturized power sources and security monitoring monitoring systems combined with the comprehensive data management services required to support them. The company is owed by Applied Digital Solutions a publicly traded company, who also owns VeriChip.
Digital Angel’s devices originally designed to help keep tabs on “wanderers” such as children and Alzheimer’s patients found that after 9/11 people could get lost for reasons frightening beyond what was once considered the normal threats to personal safety. They were “discovered” shortly after 9/11 by an anxious public. Digital Angel is a first ever combination of advanced sensor technology that can communicate biological and location data in real time using satellite GPS technology and Internet-integrated ground stations. The data can be viewed on any computer or device with internet access. Nothing is needed to “attach” the devices to the skin –the sensors react to the infared radiation naturally emitted from the body. The device costs $299 with a monthly monitoring fee of $29.95. It consists of a wristwatch and a unit worn around the waist.
Biochip Technology
What is biochip technology? Today’s biochip implant is a small (micro) computer chip inserted under the skin for identification purposes. It has 2 components: 1. The transponder and 2. a reader or scanner. The transponder in the actual biochip implant. The biochip system is a radio frequency identification (RFID) system, using low-frequency radio signals to communicate between the biochip and reader. The reading range? Between 2 and 12 inches.
The transponder is a passive transponder, meaning it contain no battery or energy of its own. In comparison, an active transponder would provide its own energy source, normally a small battery. Because the passive biochip contains no battery, or nothing to wear out, it has a very long life, up to 99 years. It remains inactive until the reader activates it be sending it a low power electrical charge. The reader “reads” or “scans” the implanted biochip and receives back data from the biochip via low frequency radio waves.
The biochip is inserted under the skin with a hypodermic syringe.
In Theory, a chip implant would contain your financial world, medical history, heath care – it would contain your “electronic life.” If cash no longer existed and if the world’s economy was totally chip oriented, there would be a huge “black market” for chips. Since there is no cash and no other bartering system, criminals could cut off hands and heads stealing “rich folks” chips. Imagine borrowing Bill Gates chip for a few days. A similar concern is among potential kidnappers. “Once kidnappers get to know about these things, they will skin you alive to find them (New York Times, 06/20/1999).
Mark Morford, SF Gate columnist, writes on 10/20/2004 “...[walking naked and keyless to his car] I shall wave my arm over a tiny scanner and the doors will open and the engine start...” “I shall stroll up to any ATM sans wallets and sans ATM card and I shall hold my arm over the screen and withdraw four hundred dollars…” He states that this is all possible due to a new FDA approved implantable microchip – the size of a grain of rice, inserted just under the skin. Apparently this new chip is already being implanted in medical patients for the alleged purpose of tracking their health needs and speeding treatment as well as in employees working in high-security areas. It has been presented as “benign” and is even made to appear “all fun and commercial and ultraconvenient.” (read between the lines as “cool.”) But what happens when things become more diabolical? He states in his article that personal information is a form of knowledge, and knowledge is power and the new chip is all about who knows what about whom and the government would dearly love to know it all. He points out certain uses: Airline check in, rental cars, proof of ID? It will all be in your arm, baby. How about shoe size, blood-alcohol limit, contact lens prescription, voter registration, grocery store discounts, phone numbers of all your former lovers, alimony-payment status, PINs and electronic bike-lock combos and car-seat-adjustment preferences… Enter a world where you will be instantly traceable and locatable and with a tweak here and wire there we can follow you via GPS anywhere on the planet. Morford predicts the chips will start a new trend and become fashion accessories akin to dental fillings stamped with a Gucci logo or cool tattoos on your kidney. Your credit limit will be implanted into your skin, access to private clubs and shops and spas will be granted depending on your “chip status.” Keyless entry implants will be free with the purchase of any new Jaguar. Certain things, he says, may be facilitated by the chip. But the flip side is that other things may be denied. He says consider entrance to an exclusive club: based on income and private interests (books, illicit sex, “mild but annoying acts of sedition and anarchy”) you may be denied admission.
Judi McLeod of canadafreepress.com write on 09/22/2005 about “Big Brother Under the Skin” where a company is implanting Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags in corpses in Missippi to help identify the dead in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in attempt to continue to identify them in light of advancing decomposition. The cost? In this case it is free but otherwise it would be $200 per corpse. The company is VeriChip and based in Florida. They have received approval the US FDA for a rice-sized chip implantable in humans. Critics have voiced concern around the issue of privacy because the radio signal emitted from the tag could be in theory tracked by just about anyone with the capacity to do so. For example, she states that a wife hiding from a physically abusive husband could be tracked no matter how far she flees. It could also potentially expose the person to anyone looking to use the information for harm if it can unlock personal or medical information (i.e. others could “hack” into it). This could precipitate all kinds of unforeseen crime such as blackmail for example.
WorldNetDaily.com reports on 02/10/2006 that a Cincinnati video-surveillance company, CityWatcher.com, is requiring all employees that work in its secure data center to be implanted with a microchip. The chips are implanted in the tricep area of the arm and are glass-encapsulated radio-frequency identification tags (RFID) and manufactured by the Florida based company, VeriChip according to Liz McIntyre, coauthor of “Spychips: How major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID.” A spokeperson for CityWatcher.com explained that the reason to implant the chips “was a move to increase the layer of security.” McIntyre, however, has shown that the Verichip is vulnerable to hackers. One security researcher, Jonathan Westhues, has already shown how a hacker can clone a chip and theoretically duplicate someone’s implant to access a secure area.
Maureen Farrell write on 02/27/2006 on BuzzFlash.com where Senator Joseph Biden addressed Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on September 2005 warning him that eventually they would rule on microchips being implanted into people to track there every movement. She notes already that the Cincinnati based company, CityWatchers.com has already implanted radio-frequency ID (RFID) silicon chips into two of its employees. The company defended the practice but anti-RFID activist, Liz McIntyre, took exception and was concerned that a government contractor that specializes in surveillance would be the first to publicly incorporate this technology in the workplace. Liz McIntyre and Katherine Albrecht are co-authors of Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID. Albrecht believes that privacy concerns go beyond religious and political lines. RFID chips are now being used to inventory unidentified remains in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and more than 800 hospitals are using RFID technology to monitor infants in maternity wards. Apart from “Big brother concerns,” Independent Researcher Jonathan Westhues has already demonstrated how easy it is to hack and clone imbedded chips and steal information: I could sit next to you on the subway, and read your chip’s ID. At this point I can break into your house, by replaing that ID. So now you have to change your ID; but as far as I know, you cannot do this without surgery. The article points out that RFID progression is moving along swiftly: Tommy Thompson, onetime Governor of Wiscosin, former bush administration official who now serves on the board of Applied Digital, the company that manufactures VeriChip told the Philadelphia Inquirer that the new technology “will prevent babies from being picked up by the wrong people in the maternity ward and make sure people in nursing homes don’t walk away.” He also announced he would be receiving an RFID implant himself. In 2002 Philadelphia Inquirer addressed benefits of chipping children and monitoring them via GPS much as is done for cars when they are stolen. Albrecht is concerned about the technology posing serious risks to privacy and civil liberties and that they can be read silently from a distance right through the clothes. Additonally these companies have developed ways to embed RFID tags into credit cards, clothing and even US passports to be able to track people. As of February 2006, approximately 70 people in the US that have implants for “medical reasons” as do employees at the organized crime division of Mexico’s attorney general office in Mexico City and 2,000 patrons of nightclubs in Barcelona, Spain and Rotterdam, Netherlands. Microchips implants have been available for our pets for years.
Bamford (Atlantic monthly April 2006) writes that Frank Church, the Idaho Democrat who led the first probe into the NSA, warned in 1975 that this technology could very easily be turned around on the American People, and no American would have any privacy left in that almost all electronic and digital forms of communication are subject to monitoring. As such there is no place to hide. Church states that if this government ever became a tyranny or if a dictator ever took charge, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it is done, is within the reach of the government to know.
Cyber Control
August 9, 2006
A net of control by Steven Levy
Picture an information infrastructure that encourages censorship, surveillance and suppression of the creative impulse. Where anonymity is outlawed and every penny spent is accounted for. Where the powers that be can smother subversive ideas in their infancy, and no one can publish even a laundry list without the approval of Big Brother. Some prognosticators are saying that such a construct is nearly inevitable. This infrastructure is none other than the former paradise of rebels and free-speechers: the Internet.
To those exposed to the excessively optimistic euphoria of Net enthusiasts during the 1990s, the
vision seems unbelievable. After all, wasn’t the Internet supposed to be the defining example of empowering technology? Freedom was allegedly built into the very bones of the Internet, designed to withstand nuclear blasts and dictatorial attempts at control. While this cyberslack has its downside-porn, credit-card fraud and insincere bids on eBay.
it was considered a small price to pay for free speech and friction-free business models. The freedom genie was out, and no one could put it back into the bottle.
Certainly John Walker believed all that. The hackerish founder of the software firm Autodesk, now retired to Switzerland to work on personal projects of his choosing, enjoyed “unbounded optimism” that the Net would not only offset the powers of industry and government but actually restore some previously threatened personal liberties.
But in the past couple of years, he noticed a disturbing trend. Developments in technology, law
and commerce seemed to be directed toward actually changing the open nature of the Net. And Internet Revisited would create opportunities for business and government to control and monitor cyberspace.
In September Walker posted his fears in a 28,000-word Web document called the Digital Imprimatur. The name refers to his belief that it is possible that nothing would be allowed to even appear on the Internet without having a proper authorization.
How could the freedom genie be shoved back into the bottle? Basically, it’s part of a huge effort to transform the Net from an arena where anyone can anonymously participate to a sign-in affair where tamperproof “digital certificates” identify who you are. The advantages of such a system are clear: it would eliminate identity theft and enable small, secure electronic “micro-transactions,” long a dream of Internet commerce pioneers. (Another bonus: arrivederci, unwelcome spam.) A concurrent step would be the adoption of “trusted computing,” a system by which not only people but computer programs would be stamped with identifying marks.
Those would link with certificates that determine whether programs are uncorrupted and cleared to run on your computer.
The best-known implementation of this scheme is the work in progress at Microsoft known as Next Generation Secure Computing Base (formerly called Palladium). It will be part of Longhorn, the next big Windows version, out in 2006. Intel and AMD are onboard to create special secure chips that would make all computers sold after that point secure. No more viruses! And the addition of “digital rights management” to movies, music and even documents created by individuals (such protections are already built into the recently released version of Microsoft Office) would use the secure system to make sure that no one can access or, potentially, even post anything without permission.
The giants of Internet commerce are eager to see this happen. “The social, economic and legal priorities are going to force the Internet toward security,” says Stratton Sclavos, CEO of VeriSign, a company built to provide digital certificates (it also owns Network Solutions, the exclusive handler of the “dot-com” part of the Internet domain-name system).
“It’s not going to be all right not to know who’s on the other end of the wire.” Governments will be able to tax e-commerce-and dictators can keep track of who’s saying what.
Walker isn’t the first to warn of this ominous power shift. The Internet’s pre-eminent dean of darkness is Lawrence Lessig, the Stanford University guru of cyberlaw. Beginning with his 1999 book “Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace,” Lessig has been predicting that corporate and regulatory pressures would usurp the open nature of the Net, and now says that he has little reason to retract his pessimism. Lessig understands that restrictive copyright and Homeland Security laws give a legal rationale to “total control,” and also knows that it will be sold to the people as a great way to stop thieves, pirates, malicious hackers, spammers and child pornographers. “To say we need total freedom isn’t going to win,” Lessig says.
Certain companies are beginning to understand that their businesses depend on an open Internet. Activist groups are sounding alarms. Some legislators are beginning to look upon digital rights management schemes with skepticism. Courts might balk if the restrictions clearly violate the First Amendment. There are people concocting schemes that may be able to bypass even a rigidly controlled Internet. In one paper published by, of Microsoft’s Palladium developers, Is discussed the scenario where small private “dark nets” where data can be freely moved in a hostile environment. Picture digital freedom fighters huddling in the electronic equivalent of caves, files-swapping and blogging under the radar of censors and copyright cops.
Staving off the Internet power shifts will be a difficult task, made even harder by apathy on the part of users who won’t know what they’ve got till it’s gone. Our increasingly Internet-based society will get only the freedom it fights for.
Nick Farell rants that America needs to give up internet control in an online article dated 08/05/2006. He states that biggest communication toll is controlled by the most powerful superpower. Americans have made the argument that they invented it and it is running OK. Does the fact that the US military funded the development if the internet give it the right to run it? The internet has frown bigger than its original design largely through international efforts. Once an invention gets universal adoption, it is not any single country’s property. The interweb for example was developed from telephone technology and we don’t see a regulatory body setup by the US trying to control the telephone network phone numbers in another country. Why should the internet be different?
America is a nation with an insular majority that is easily hijacked by minorities or companies with cash to buy politicians. At present the religious right has a significant amount of power.
If they were to have control of the internet they could leverage the US government to spread their religious messages and moral standards throughout the world. Their efforts have already had significant impact on the computerized porn industry.
ICANN has the power to de-register any site the US government does not like. It can also switch off any country’s link to the Interweb by denying it access to the DNS servers. Although the US has not used this power, it does not mean that it won’t use it. Farrell feels that David Gross, US coordinator for the international communications and information policy at the State Department with his imperialist arrogance, has shown that the US does not care what the rest of the world thinks. There is a danger that the world will tell the UD that it its own Internet and set out to quickly build one as the Chinese have done. It is only a matter of time before the Europeans follow suit as they probably feel that they should not have moral standards imposed on them by the US.
This will damage the universal power of the internet to connect with nations and information. Humanity will be the bigger loser.
Per haps the solution may be setting up an independent international body formed by representatives from the world governments to run the internet. In this manner there is no discredited UN (which the US feels is a corrupt institution), no US imperialism or politics- just a technology body in charge of running an important tool for humanity’s development. Farrell feels that the US must give up internet control for the benefit of humanity.
Who will control the internet?
Kenneth Neil Cukier writes in foreign affairs that on June 30, 2005 a statement was released by the US department of commerce that was more “low key” than usual- 331 words on a single page- Washington’s attempt to solve he problem of “who controls the internet”.
He points out that any network requires some centralized control in order to function. The global phone system is run by the world’s oldest international treaty organization founded in 1865. The internet is different. It is coordinated by a private sector nonprofit organization called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), set up the US in 1998 to take over activities performed for 30 years by one single professor in California with a ponytail.
The controversy regarding who controls the internet has been simmering for years and recently crept into formal diplomatic talks. Many governments feel that, like the phone network, the internet should be administered under multilateral treaty. ICANN, in their view, is an American instrument over cyberspace control; its private-sector approach favors the US, Washington retains oversight authority, and its government advisory committee composed of delegates from other nations has no real powers.
This discontent finally boiled over at the UN’s world summit on the information society in Geneva December of 2003. Brazil and South Africa criticized the current arrangement and China called for the creation of a new international treaty organization. France wanted a intergovernmental but based on democratic values. Cuba and Syria have taken advantage of the controversy to poke a finger in Washington’s eye and Zimbabwe’s tyrant has called the existing system a form of neocolonialism.
Almost cherished myth is that the internet is totally decentralized and inherently uncontrollable. This is based on a bit of truth and wishful thinking. It is true that compared with century-old telephone system, the internet is a paragon of deregulation and decentralization. In four critical areas however, it requires oversight and coordination in order to operate smoothly. Together, these areas constitute the “domain name system” of addresses, with which users navigate the internet and send email.
First there are domain names such as www.foreignaffairs.org. Somebody must decide who will operate the database of generic names ending with suffixes such as “.com,” “.net,” “.info,” and others (a privilege that promises handsome profits). Someone must also appoint the operators of two-letter country-code suffices (such as “.cn,” for China).
Second, there are Internet protocol (IP) numbers, the up-to-12 digit codes, invisible to users, that every machine on the network needs to have in order to be recognized by other machines. Due to a technical decision made when the network was developing in the late 1970’s, the system was setup to accommodate only around 4 billion potential IP numbers-much less that what is needed now. Until the internet is upgraded, accordingly, IP numbers must be allocated sparingly and carefully since accidentally duplicating them creates mayhem for routing internet traffic.
Third are the root servers. Some form of control is needed in the actual machines that make the domain system work. When users visit web sites or send e-mail, big computers known as root servers match the domain names with their corresponding IP numbers in a matter of milliseconds. The database is the world’s most important rolodex. Due to another technical error that occurred when the network was young, there can be only 13 root servers, some providing data to mirror sites around the world. Somebody must therefore decide who will operate the root servers and where those operators will be based. Since the system informally evolved, the roots servers’ administrators are diverse including NASA, a Dutch nonprofit organization, universities, the US military and private companies. Today 10 root servers are operated from the US and on each in Amsterdam, Stockholm and Tokyo.
Fourth and finally, there are technical standards that have to established and coordinated to ensure interoperability. If countries place restrictions on the types of domain names that can be used, this hampers free speech. The personal information of registrants of addresses with generic suffixes such as “.com,” and “.net,” are made publicly available online jeopardizing privacy. Telecom operators need access to IP numbers to deploy services, making them a major asset for companies and an economic interest of countries. Technical standards can be designed to foster openness or permit censorship and surveillance. The internet, before it is physically constructed from routers and cables, is made up of values. The domain name system is the central chokepoint where control can be exercised.
For most of its history, the internet has been administered by Woodstock-era American engineers and academics. As a result the network reflected their philosophy: a political and economic liberalism led to openness on a technical level. The open infrastructure (letting any network connect to any other, hence “inter-net”) has fostered free expression, low-cost access and innovation. Its private sector origins have made the internet non-bureaucratic, particularly compared with state-run monopoly telecom carriers.
The internets openness begets big headaches: it is difficult to track spammers; it is tremendously vulnerable to hacking. The open network is like an open society- crime thrives but so does creativity. We take for granted that the internet we enjoy today will continue to have characteristics, but this is hardly certain. It all depends on who controls the domain name system and what priorities they choose to set.
Until 1998, the internet was overseen mostly by one man: Jon Postel, a computer science professor at the U of Southern California. As a grad student in the 60’s, he was among a handful of engineers who built the internet. For the next 30 years he managed it on behalf of the Dept. of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agency.
Postel made decisions such as who should get to operate a country-code domain, national address suffices were allocated to private individuals rather than government bodies. This was because in the early days the internet was so new and strange there was usually no appropriate national organization to which to hand a suffix. Governments and their telecom carriers in particular, more often hindered communications development than help them. By the mid 90’s, however, it became clear that the internet could no longer be administered by a single individual. Who or what would replace him?
After a bitter series of negotiations among the business community, governments, nongovernmental organizations worldwide, the Clinton administration brokered a compromise and established ICANN in 1998. Because the US hands-off approach had allowed the Internet to flourish, the new organization was based in the private sector. This would make it more responsive, flexible and less prone to bureaucratic and political squabbling. Apparently Postel suffered a heart attack and died as a result of the tense negotiations.
ICANN was an experimental approach to managing a global resource on a non-governmental basis. In its early days it was regarded as a model for other issues requiring the unified action of many groups such as treating communicable diseases or handling climate change. ICANN’s private-sector status helped keep the internet free from political interference.
Yet ICANN was plagued by controversy from the start. Critics charged that it lacked transparency, accountability and legitimacy. Civil society groups felt it was in the pocket of the domain name registration business it was designed to regulate. Businesses felt it was overly governmental. Foreign governments felt powerless before it. As developing countries began to realize the importance of the internet, they felt it absurd that it was run by nonprofit organization whose 15 –person board or directors was accountable to the attorney general of the state of California and under the authority of the US government. The US Congress criticized it hauling the group in hearings regularly. Half a decade after it was founded with such optimism, the organization was mockingly referred to as “ICANN’T.”
This all came to a head in 2003 during the prep meetings for the World Summit on the information Society. Washington had been able to defect criticism in some discussion but proved unable to block the momentum for change at others. Telecom-policy officials mildly supportive of ICANN were replaced by senior representatives from foreign ministries, officials less familiar with internet governance but more experiences in challenging US power. Watching the US go to war in Iraq despite global opposition, argues about potentially whimsical decisions the US might make to knock a country off community rather than a single nation.
In November 2004 UN Secretary-General Kofu Annan appointed a 40 person working group to address questions of internet governance. Washington has already planned to grant ICANN autonomy from its oversight in 2006. The more other countries clamored fro power, the more the IS reconsidered its policy of relinquishing control. Ultimately it came down to national interest: Washington with so much at stake in the internet’s continuing to function as it had, decided it was not prepared to risk any changes. As the UN working group was preparing to release its reports (favoring transfer of authority over to the UN), the US government said the US would retain authority over ICANN.
Power before coming from the arms or wealth usually emanates from ideas. The Internet has emerged as a piece of critical information infrastructure for every nation. Developed countries on creasingly rely on it for their economic livelihood and basic communications; developing nations recognize it as a way of linking people together, enabling commercial relationships, and generating the transparency and civic dialogue that undergird democratic governance. Information technology can also strengthen the hand of authoritarian regimes, but there seems little doubt that in its current form the Internet’s general influence is progressive rather that regressive.
ICANN cannot take credit for any of this but the group’s work has ensured that the network operates smoothly so that these benefits can be realized. As the overseer of the domain name system, the US has taken a liberal approach in keeping with its liberal values. There is no guarantee that an intergovernmental system would continue on such a course, and so even committed internationalists ought to be wary of changing how the system is run.
This is especially so cine the very countries that most restrict the internet within their borders are the ones calling loudest for greater control. As other countries shrpen their diplomatic knives for the final round of the summit in Tunis in November, the dispute is echoing an earlier battle in 1980s over the so called New World information and communication order, which led the US and the UK to pull out of the organization. Then, it was the Soviet Union, its satellites, and the developing world that called for controlling media activities and funding the development of media resources in developing counties; today, some of those same nations seek power over the internet, as well as financial aid to overcome the digital divide.
Washington’s new position shrewdly mixes in a few carrots in along with the big stick. It formally acknowledges that countries have “sovereignty concerns” about their national two-letter domains. Although this will invite problems these can be sidestepped- just as allocation of telephone “country codes” to terrorist does not confer diplomatic recognition, neither does allocation of country domains need to. Washington also supports the continued discussion of broader internet governance issues in multiple forums, which could restrain the creation of cumbersome and monolithic global internet policy council (which was among the UN working groups proposals). It may also keep politicians from trespassing on ICANN’s more purely technical area’s, which could harm the network.
Nevertheless, although the new US position may be the least bad alternative in the short term, it will almost certainly be unsustainable over the longer term. For the moment, there is little other governments can do to rebel. Unless they feel their concerns are being addressed, however they are likely to try to set up a parallel naming and addressing system to compete with ICANN-sanctioned domains. Technology abhors homogeneity; differing technical standards are the rule rather than the exemption. The ongoing scuffle over the creation of Galileo, Europe’s challenge to Washington’s GPS, is one example; the battle over third-generation mobile-phone standards is another. The danger, however, is that two different addressing systems on the internet may not interoperate perfectly. If it wants to preserve and extend the benefits the internet currently brings. Washington will have to come up with some way of sharing with other countries without jeopardizing the network’s stability or discouraging free speech and technical innovation.
Ultimately, what is playing out is a clash of perspectives. The US government saw the creation of ICANN as the voluntary relinquishing of a critical source of power in the digital age; others saw it as a clever way for Washington to maintain its influence by placing internet governance in the US private sector. Foreign critics think a shift to multilateral intergovernmental control would mark a step toward enlightened global democracy; Washington thinks it would constitute a step back in time, toward state regulated telecommunications. Whether and how these perspectives are bridged will determine the future of a global resource that nearly all of us have come to take for granted.
1. Future of Internet Debate Ignored by Media
IN TOP 25 CENSORED STORIES FOR 2007
Sources:
Buzzflash.com, July 18, 2005
Title: “Web of Deceit: How Internet Freedom Got the Federal Ax, and Why Corporate News Censored the Story”
Author: Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D.
Student Researchers: Lauren Powell, Brett Forest, and Zoe Huffman
Faculty Evaluator: Andrew Roth, Ph.D.
Throughout 2005 and 2006, a large underground debate raged regarding the future of the Internet. More recently referred to as “network neutrality,” the issue has become a tug of war with cable companies on the one hand and consumers and Internet service providers on the other. Yet despite important legislative proposals and Supreme Court decisions throughout 2005, the issue was almost completely ignored in the headlines until 2006.1 And, except for occasional coverage on CNBC’s Kudlow & Kramer, mainstream television remains hands-off to this day (June 2006).2
Most coverage of the issue framed it as an argument over regulation—but the term “regulation” in this case is somewhat misleading. Groups advocating for “net neutrality” are not promoting regulation of internet content. What they want is a legal mandate forcing cable companies to allow internet service providers (ISPs) free access to their cable lines (called a “common carriage” agreement). This was the model used for dial-up internet, and it is the way content providers want to keep it. They also want to make sure that cable companies cannot screen or interrupt internet content without a court order.
Those in favor of net neutrality say that lack of government regulation simply means that cable lines will be regulated by the cable companies themselves. ISPs will have to pay a hefty service fee for the right to use cable lines (making internet services more expensive). Those who could pay more would get better access; those who could not pay would be left behind. Cable companies could also decide to filter Internet content at will.
On the other side, cable company supporters say that a great deal of time and money was spent laying cable lines and expanding their speed and quality.3 They claim that allowing ISPs free access would deny cable companies the ability to recoup their investments, and maintain that cable providers should be allowed to charge. Not doing so, they predict, would discourage competition and innovation within the cable industry.
Cable supporters like the AT&T-sponsored Hands Off the Internet website assert that common carriage legislation would lead to higher prices and months of legal wrangling. They maintain that such legislation fixes a problem that doesn’t exist and scoff at concerns that phone and cable companies will use their position to limit access based on fees as groundless. Though cable companies deny plans to block content providers without cause, there are a number of examples of cable-initiated discrimination.
In March 2005, the FCC settled a case against a North Carolina-based telephone company that was blocking the ability of its customers to use voice-over-Internet calling services instead of (the more expensive) phone lines.4 In August 2005, a Canadian cable company blocked access to a site that supported the cable union in a labor dispute.5 In February 2006, Cox Communications denied customers access to the Craig’s List website. Though Cox claims that it was simply a security error, it was discovered that Cox ran a classified service that competes with Craig’s List.6
court decisions
In June of 1999, the Ninth District Court ruled that AT&T would have to open its cable network to ISPs (AT&T v. City of Portland). The court said that Internet transmissions, interactive, two-way exchanges, were telecommunication offerings, not a cable information service (like CNN) that sends data one way. This decision was overturned on appeal a year later.
Recent court decisions have extended the cable company agenda further. On June 27, 2005, The United States Supreme Court ruled that cable corporations like Comcast and Verizon were not required to share their lines with rival ISPs (National Cable & Telecommunications Association vs. Brand X Internet Services).7 Cable companies would not have to offer common carriage agreements for cable lines the way that telephone companies have for phone lines.
According to Dr. Elliot Cohen, the decision accepted the FCC assertion that cable modem service is not a two-way telecommunications offering, but a one-way information service, completely overturning the 1999 ruling. Meanwhile, telephone companies charge that such a decision gives an unfair advantage to cable companies and are requesting that they be released from their common carriage requirement as well.
Legislation
On June 8, the House rejected legislation (HR 5273) that would have prevented phone and cable companies from selling preferential treatment on their networks for delivery of video and other data-heavy applications. It also passed the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act (HR 5252), which supporters said would encourage innovation and the construction of more high-speed Internet lines. Internet neutrality advocates say it will allow phone and cable companies to cherry-pick customers in wealthy neighborhoods while eliminating the current requirement demanded by most local governments that cable TV companies serve low-income and minority areas as well. 8
Comment: As of June 2006, the COPE Act is in the Senate. Supporters say the bill supports innovation and freedom of choice. Interet neutrality advocates say that its passage would forever compromise the Internet. Giant cable companies would attain a monopoly on high-speed, cable Internet. They would prevent poorer citizens from broadband access, while monitoring and controlling the content of information that can be accessed.
Notes
1. “Keeping a Democratic Web,” The New York Times, May 2, 2006.
2. Jim Goldman, Larry Kudlow, and Phil Lebeau, “Panelists Michael Powell, Mike Holland, Neil Weinberg, John Augustine and Pablo Perez-Fernandez discuss markets,” Kudlow & Company CNBC, March 6, 2006.
3. http://www.Handsofftheinternet.com.
4. Michael Geist, “Telus breaks Net Providers’ cardinal rule: Telecom company blocks access to site supporting union in labour dispute,” Ottawa Citizen, August 4, 2005.
5. Jonathan Krim, “Renewed Warning of Bandwidth Hoarding,” The Washington Post, November 24, 2005.
6. David A. Utter, “Craigslist Blocked By Cox Interactive,” http://www.Webpronews.com, June 7, 2006.
7. Yuki Noguchi, “Cable Firms Don’t Have to Share Networks, Court Rules,” Washington Post, June 28, 2005.
8. “Last week in Congress / How our representatives voted,” Buffalo News (New York), June 11, 2006.
UPDATE BY ELLIOT D. COHEN, PH.D.
Despite the fact that the Court’s decision in Brand X marks the beginning of the end for a robust, democratic Internet, there has been a virtual MSM blackout in covering it. As a result of this decision, the legal stage has been set for further corporate control. Currently pending in Congress is the “Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006”(HR 5252), fueled by strong telecom corporative lobbies and introduced by Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX). This Act, which fails to adequately protect an open and neutral Internet, includes a “Title II—Enforcement of Broadband Policy Statement” that gives the FCC “exclusive authority to adjudicate any complaint alleging a violation of the broadband policy statement or the principles incorporated therein.” With the passage of this provision, courts will have scant authority to challenge and overturn FCC decisions regarding broadband. Since under current FCC Chair Kevin Martin, the FCC is moving toward still further deregulation of telecom and media companies, the likely consequence is the thickening of the plot to increase corporate control of the Internet. In particular, behemoth telecom corporations like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T want to set up toll booths on the Internet. If these companies get their way, content providers with deep pockets will be afforded optimum bandwidth while the rest of us will be left spinning in cyberspace. No longer will everyone enjoy an equal voice in the freest and most comprehensive democratic forum ever devised by humankind.
As might be expected, none of these new developments are being addressed by the MSM. Among media activist organizations attempting to stop the gutting of the free Internet is The Free Press (http://www.freepress.net/), which now has an aggressive “Save the Internet” campaign.
See the full list of Top 25 Censored Stories for 2007
Sen. Collins says DHS should lead cybersecurity, not White House
BY CHRIS STROHM, CONGRESSDAILY 09/25/2009
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs ranking member is preparing cybersecurity legislation that would give the Homeland Security Department -- and not what she calls a "White House czar" -- primary authority to protect federal civilian and private computer networks from attacks.
"We need more rigorous and aggressive cybersecurity standards, both for the federal government and in helping the private sector improve cybersecurity practices," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said in an interview.
"I also think we need to clarify who is in charge of cybersecurity across the federal government and make sure that the officials and agencies involved have the authority that they need."
She added: "I expect we will have a bill to introduce within the month."
Her measure will add to an increasingly jumbled landscape of cybersecurity legislation and stakes out a different approach from a bill introduced this year by Senate Commerce Chairman John (Jay) Rockefeller, D-W.Va., a former Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, and Collins' Republican colleague from Maine, Sen. Olympia Snowe.
Additionally, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Joseph Lieberman plans to introduce a cybersecurity bill -- although Collins and Lieberman, who often co-sponsor security legislation, are likely to work out a compromise
"Sen. Lieberman fully expects one bill to emerge from committee," his spokeswoman said.
A closely-held draft of the Collins bill is being vetted by industry experts, sources said.
Collins declined to discuss details, but said the bill would counter the Rockefeller-Snowe measure by codifying and strengthening cybersecurity responsibilities of the Homeland Security Department.
Rockefeller and Snowe want to create a White House office and national cybersecurity adviser to lead efforts to defend against assaults on the nation's public and private computer networks.
"They want a White House czar and I definitely think that would be a mistake," Collins said. "I believe that we need to clearly define and designate the Department of Homeland Security as being the lead agency for civilian government computers and to assist the private sector."
"The department has a division that is in charge of looking at the private sector infrastructure and identifying threats, vulnerabilities and risks. I see no reason for them not to include cybersecurity."
Collins added that the Defense Department and National Security Agency would be responsible for protecting defense networks.
She indicated that her bill also would call on the federal government to help private companies adopt best practices, particularly through its purchasing power.
The senator said she met this week with the president of a home heating oil business in Maine whose business had lost $125,000 due to cyberattacks.
"He was telling me, and this is something I've long felt, that the private sector needs more help from government in knowing what the best standards are, what they should look for when they're purchasing hardware and software," Collins said.
"The government can do a lot to improve cybersecurity simply by using its purchasing power," she added.
"If it starts establishing minimum security standards for the computer hardware and software that it buys, because it is such a large purchaser, it will encourage computer manufacturers and software writers to incorporate better security into their products."
Corruption of Wikipedia (http://wikicensored.info/)
For the greater good of Wikipedia, Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales should resign from its board of Trustees.
Wikipedia's business model is generating Web traffic (primarily from search engines) for articles of conventional wisdom and morality (that are heavily censored by a commune governed by mostly anonymous Administrators and other anonymous high officials) to motivate (financial) contributions.
In normal academic practice, the views of experts are solicited, discussed, and respected. On Wikipedia, academic experts who have tried to participate have been denigrated as "self-promoters", censored, and then banned on the grounds that their views are not in accord with Wikipedia-imposed Administrator point of view. As part of its business model, Wikipedia has engaged in libel and vilification in an attempt to intimidate academics into conforming to the censorship of its Administrators. Defacto Wikipedia bans experts from editing articles.
This article explores issues regarding the corruption of Wikipedia. It does not address other Wikipedia issues.Contents
PDF of full version of this article is available here.
Keyword names: Peter Baskerville, Rod Dreher, Seth Finkelstein, Kyle Gann, R. Stuart Geiger, Mike Godwin, Ryan Jordan, John Harnad, Giles Hattersley,...
Censorship by Wikipedia
Wikipedia is a “Communal Blog”, not an encyclopedia
Wikipedia Libels and Vilifies People
Wikipedia instigated the defamatory attack by The Observer on Carl Hewitt
Scientific Paradigm versus Wikipedia Paradigm
Deception by Wikipedia
Current trends do not look promising for Wikipedia.
For the greater good of Wikipedia, Jimmy “Jimbo” Wales should resign from its Board of Trustees.
