Info War Comes Home
[Note: Whenever I do one of my longer pieces, it seems to drop into the void. Perhaps they are so well written and complete that no one can think of any comment to make on them. Perhaps not. Read this one and comment. You won't regret it.] In honor of the Second Annual Conference on Information Warfare a few weekends ago, here is my proposal towards a paper to be presented at next year's conference. ************************************************************************* The Mesh in the 'Hood If any of you have not read every word of The Economist's Survey of Defence Technology - "Softwar" in the June 10, 1995 issue --- shame on you. Do so immediately. In that report, there is the following description of the future battlefield without platforms (ships, aircraft, armor). AKA the Mesh. The Mesh is a network imposed over a landscape (what used to be called a battlefield). The network of sensors, smart munitions, small attack modules, and perhaps human troops, shares information and kills enemies moving through it. Friendly forces travel through it as if it weren't there. It is "flat." Hills and valleys disappear and expensive platforms [tanks, helicopters, etc.] have nowhere to hide since it is co-extensive with the whole territory it covers. It is also tough because it is hard to destroy enough parts of it to make a difference. Nuclear munitions might destroy a Mesh or imposing a stronger Mesh over an existing one might work if you didn't mind wholesale destruction but defeating it without massive destruction is hard. To quote from the Survey: "The mesh has a number of advantages. It is hard to attack, because its strength is spread widely. It is hard to damage, because there are so many communication paths. Many small sensors can provide a better picture than a few large ones. More sensors allow the information domain to conform more closely to the physical terrain. At the moment line-of-sight detection by sensors in a widespread network leaves topographical blind spots--wadis, narrow valleys--in which platforms such as attack helicopters can lurk." "While nets may see through the fog of war, meshes also tackle another of the problems von Clausewitz identified; war's friction. The mesh is a war machine with almost no moving parts, save the actual warheads of the weapons. It is a solid-state device; its mechanisms have migrated far into the spectral dimension of information, leaving only a thin skeleton framework in the world of height, breadth and depth." It certainly makes for a challenging war environment. The Mesh is created by warriors to effectively serve warriors' ends, I would like to suggest the possibility that civilians might create their own Mesh to serve their ends. A Mesh is Just a Net with Attitude The Internet is (as we all know) a network of interconnected computers that cooperate to exchange information in a standardized fashion. Its purpose is communication. If its purpose is extended, it can become a Mesh. Assume that the Net has grown in size and importance so that a significant portion of the population in a given geographic area is fully wired --- hardly a dramatic assumption. All of those machines are cooperating to enable the various sorts of communications that people want to use the Net for. Some of those machines are already connected to external cameras to do "silly" things like put pictures of Stockholm on the WWW. What if people connected other things to the Net? While it is unlikely that most people will put a chain gun in the window and interface it with the Net anytime soon, other useful connections are possible. [And even in the case of weaponry, specific neighborhoods might be interested in doing creative things now. Thus Bo Grtiz' heavily armed, Patriot, Recreational Subdivision in Idaho might find a use for the Mesh. And won't those Black Helicopters be surprised.] More peaceful civilians might deploy a Mesh to protect themselves against bad people whether official or unofficial. Like the existing Speedtrap website (http://www.nashville.net/speedtrap/) but in real time, cameras and passive sensors could track the minions of the State as they cruise through neighborhoods. They could also multicast live, full color, and audio images of arrests and less formal interactions with the authorities. Fans of Robert Heinlein will recall that Jubal Harshaw used a version of this strategy in "Stranger in a Strange Land." Cops behave better when they are on camera (and know it.) The Net allows everyone to play. END OF PART I (More next week).
On Fri, 29 Sep 1995, Duncan Frissell wrote:
[Note: Whenever I do one of my longer pieces, it seems to drop into the void. Perhaps they are so well written and complete that no one can think of any comment to make on them. Perhaps not. Read this one and comment. You won't regret it.]
In honor of the Second Annual Conference on Information Warfare a few weekends ago, here is my proposal towards a paper to be presented at next year's conference.
A couple of things jump to mind: Though I know you only used War as a metaphor, even that rubs me the wrong way. I don't like wars or people who fight them--namely States, bullies (BIG bullies), and other Territorial Gangsters. It's an authoritarian, hierarchical model, even though I realize you're using it loosely. Your piece is very short on details, but the few you give all employ the War metaphor: "neighborhood defense," sensors, video cameras, etc. I have no problem with some of these things per se, especially if they're targeted against the State, but I also have no interest in living in a kind of permanent war zone. This strikes me as a negative approach versus the more positive approach of, say, mutual assistance groups like the "tong." (Hakim Bey wrote an excellent essay on tongs and their applicability to modern anarchist groups, btw. If anyone's interested, send me an email message with subject "TONG PLEASE" and it'll be sent to you automatically.) Anyone attracted by the idea of urban warfare should read Mike Davis's excellent "City of Quartz." He's talking about the modern city (specifically, L.A.) as a war zone pitting _haves against have-nots,_ but the idea is the same, and it's scary as hell. I'm ambivalent, to say the least, about the mania for getting everything in the world WIRED, but if you want to convince me you'll have to come up with a model that offers me something _constructive._ Cheers. --Dave. -- Dave Mandl dmandl@panix.com http://wfmu.org/~davem
participants (2)
-
dmandl@panix.com -
Duncan Frissell