|
|
|
|
|
Tom Regan
Can we provide security for the Internet and protect free speech at the same time?
As the Internet continues to grow, so does the potential for crackers and terrorists to misuse it. It's not a situation that calls for panic or paranoia, but it is one that calls for prudence. We would never leave our houses wide open to intruders, yet we often leave our computers and networks wide-open to attack or misuse. A few simple steps would solve these problems for most non-commercial users, but the media and the e-world have done a poor job letting people know how to protect themselves. We've spilled lots of digital ink here at csmonitor.com the past few months talking about security problems, and the need for a 'tough' response. Basically, anyone who cracks into a computer, whether it's for 'fun' or for profit, has commited a crime - an invasion of personal space. Andit should be treated like a crime. Even if someone just goes into your system and looks around without touching anything, it's still an invasion. And it's probably only a matter of time before the law is rewritten to reflect this view, shared by many. After all, with so many people now investing in, working for, or counting on new technologies, it's not so funny to crash a big site like Microsoft or etoys.com -- it has an immediate ripple effects that touches all manner of interests, including those of people who care little about online, the Internet or anything technological. Online businesses must be protected from acts of frivilous mischief or deliberate theft. But what about protest? What about the act of trying to shut down a site with the use of legitimate coding -- no cracks, no malicious code, no Trojan horses, etc. I've been thinking more about this since I heard back from one of the "electrohippies." That's the group I wrote about last Tuesday (see "Cable modem and DSL users under constant attack by hackers," to the right). I had heard about the electrohippies (http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/ehippies/) from an e-mail newsletter issued by a group called iDefense, which tracks 'terrorist acts' on the Internet. The newsletter had mentioned the group as one of the organizations trying to shut down the etoys.com site because of their attempt to prevent a European Internet art group from using the url 'etoy.com,' even though etoy.com had registered their name two years before etoys. (etoys.com, however, bought their trademark from a company that had registered it in 1990.) (Note: etoys.com dropped its trademark lawsuit just after Christmas, citing the "substantial" number of e-mails and phone calls protesting its actions.) The person who wrote identified him or herself as 'P,' and wanted to take issue with the way the electrohippies had been portrayed in the iDefense newsletter. "We're definitely not 'cyber-terrorists,' 'P' wrote. "One of the implicit meanings of the term 'terrorist' is the use of violence for political ends. How can you have violence in cyberspace? If so, how do we evolve such a definition? "Does 'cyber-violence' mean the use of systems for purposes they are not programmed to do - such a definition would not include cracking, but it would include any damage done to systems once a system was successfully cracked. If we accept this definition of cyberviolence then we engage in 'non-violent' action; the use of systems in ways they were programmed to be used, but used in such a way as to convey a message or protest. Such a definition encompasses everything from sending an e-mail to a politican to a full scale denial-of-service action." Denial-of-service is when a group or individual attempts to overload a server with requests for pages, causing it to either shut down or respond so slowly as to not be useful. It's becoming the favorite weapon-of-choice for cyperprotest. "What we're all about is bringing 'community accountability' to the Internet," continued P. "Governments and corporations are setting up stalls on the Net in the expectation that the space is immune from the normal pressure present in society - like a new frontier.... but it isn't. "We have to treat cyberspace as if it were another part of society - we treat it as we would the the street or the council chamber. Therefore we must find mechanisms for lobbying and protest in cyberspace to complement those normally used in real life. Also, as more of society becomes enmeshed with the world of cyberspace, if we do not develop a toolkit of virtual tactics governments and corporations will be free to roam cyberspace without the accountability and control created by public pressure. "Without public pressure cyberspace will have no moral or normative controls to control the excesses of politicians, groups or corporations who would seek to dominate that public space." Well said. These days, the e-world demands less and less regulation and interference. Top online CEOs say a heavy regulatory hand will slow or negate the growth that is fueling this amazing economy. But whether they want to deal with it or not, the e-world (virtual as it is) is a community -- one that is very connected to the 'real' community around it. And denizens of the e-world need to be good citizens in the broader sense of the term. If they want less regulation and interference, then they've got to be willing to accept the other side of the coin -- the freedom of people to virtually 'sit-down' in front of the store, or to use the Internet to ask for a boycott of a product, or to launch massive lobbying campaigns. That's why groups like the electrohippies are so important -- even if their name is a little anachronistic. Often these groups function as an advance guard for the rest of our society, reminding us that unfettered commerce or government can become harassing, immoral or even illegal if we are not vigilant. Yes, we do need strong laws that will protect the 'new' economy, and private individuals, from online malice. But we need to create the same kind of protections for online protest and free speech that exist in the 'bricks and mortar' world. One final note. I had wondered at the end of last week's column if electrohippies traveled in virtual Volkswagen vans. Not so, said P. "We have cyber-cycles! Much kinder to the environment of cyberspace." (This Friday -- How do we protect our privacy online? )
|
|
|
|
(c) Copyright 2000 The Christian Science Publishing Society. All rights reserved. This Site Looks Best in Netscape 4.7 or Microsoft I.E. 5.0. |
