The Net and Terrorism

There have been many recent reports linking the Net and anonymous remailers, pseudonyms, and (of course) strong crypto to various possible and actual terrorist events, with an emphasis on the "possible." (If the Net is linked to _actual_ terrorist incidents, little is being disclosed publically as of yet.) Recent comments by John Deutch, William Perry, and Louis Freeh make reference to the growing danger of the Net. And the "Russian mafia" is playing a major role in this debate; I won't recap the various articles in major magazines about arms sales from the former Soviet Army, the reports that an entire paramilitary unit of the KGB is now working for the Russian mafia, and the obvious corruption of the entire former Soviet system (I'm not saying it wasn't corrupt before, just that now the paymasters have changed). Can anything be done? To stop the likely effects of lots more surface-to-air missiles, lots more nerve gas available on the black market, and so on? In a word, "no." I've been thinking about this a lot, reading the various articles, and pondering the implications. The plain fact is that the modern world is one of great "liquidity," and the vast amount of arms built up by the U.S.S.R. (thanks in large part to responding to a similar build-up in the U.S., without taking any sides...) are now "leaking out" in increasing numbers. (The leakage is quite similar to that seen in the 1975-79 period, when thousands of tons of armaments abandoned by the U.S. in Viet Nam were sold around the world. Except, of course, that the the Soviet weapons include some interesting new things.) Not even a police state can stop armaments from being diverted in situations such as faced in the former U.S.S.R. (For those not familiar with the conditions, read up on it. The combination of former command economy, secret police, selling off of industry to highest bidders, lack of a conventional industrial base...all of this makes it nearly unavoidable that much of the former state industry is now controlled by black marketeers and former Party apparatchniks....after all, who else would have the money to buy these former State industries?) In fact, a former police state does not change its stripes. The names and paymasters change a bit, but the organism lives on. (One need only look at the police states of Central and South America and their platitudes about the "Drug War" to understand the realities of such markets.) Unbreakable crypto will of course be used. This is unsurprising. A few airliners will shot down by Soviet surface-to-air missiles. This is unsurprising. I expect a city or two to get nuked in the next decade or so. (Haifa or Tel Aviv would be my leading candidates.) To me, this is unsurprising. My personal solution dovetails with other perceived threat responses: avoid living in or near major cities and take reasonable measures to cope with moderate economic or physical crises. (No, I am not a "survivalist," just mentally and physically prepared to deal with a major earthquake, economic dislocation, or terrorist incident in San Jose, which is 30 miles north of me.) FBI Director Louis Freeh and the TLA spooks are already sounding the alarm about the "Four Horsemen." Sen. Sam Nunn is calling for measures to ensure that cyberspace is "secured" and that the Net is not used to further chemical and biological terrorism. The point is that even a police state cannot stop the consequences of the increased "degrees of freedom" the modern world (and the Net) provides. In fact, police states tend to make the scale of the corruption even greater, as the Soviet and Latin American examples show. (I could of course get into the examples of arms dealings in Iran-Contra, the CIA's role in covert arms supply, etc., but this should be self-evident to all.) An Australian radio journalist asked me if the Net could make possible new types of terrorism, and could allow terrorists to plot crimes in new ways. He seemed surprised when I said "Of course" and then proceeded to give some examples of how the Net can be used to undermine governments (what those governments of course refer to as "terrorism," even when it is mostly not). I'm not advocating such "terrorism," by the way, merely telling it like it is. Arguing that the Net cannot and will not be used in such ways is naive and ultimately counterproductive. It is more accurate and useful to point out that the increased role of terrorism is due to many factors, including prominently the vast amount of armaments in the world, the role of police states which have benefitted from these build-ups in the military-industrial complex, the expansion of "virtual communities" around the world, and, crucially, the expanded number of degrees of freedom in transportation, communication, banking, and other such Information Age channels. Keep your head down, avoid crowded downtown areas, prepare for moderate disruptions, and reject arguments that an American Police State will do anything to stop terrorism. (Remember, terrorism is just warfare carried on by other means, with apolgies to Von Clausewitz.) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

[TCM]
Can anything be done? To stop the likely effects of lots more surface-to-air missiles, lots more nerve gas available on the black market, and so on?
In a word, "no."
there are various parts of this essay I agree with, and other parts that I don't. your conclusion that such things are unstoppable is quite tenuous and not backed by evidence. what you fail to note is that law enforcement agencies usually benefit from the same innovations in technology that criminals benefit from. the FBI for example has vastly improved their ability to deal with criminal fingerprints through technology for example. in fact one could argue somewhat that government agencies stand to benefit more from new tehcnology because in some ways they are better organized and better funded than small nefarious cells of terrorists. however, I tend to agree that there is a continual arms race going on here, and that it's not necessarily desirable. the "solution" (TCM would argue against the use of such a word) is not to merely try to have a warfare, siege-like mentality imho, and a continual "trying to stay ahead of the criminals". we do not have regular open terrorism in the streets of the US and I see no reason to think there ever will be as TCM suggests. nevertheless what his essay misses, and many in law enforcement miss, are the root reasons for crime. I'm not going to sound like a liberal here and say criminals are blameless because they have been psychologically abused. its not excusable to react to any situation through crime or terrorism. however they have various gripes that are always seeded in reality. it seems to me no nation-state has ever experimented with trying to take away the root causes of violence and discontent. why? because a policeman holding a gun is so much more visceral and the public responds to this image readily. other "programs" that try to decrease discontent among the budding terrorists of tommorrow are usually ridiculed. it is very difficult to prove that they work or that they are worth the money. terrorists invariably have a patricular pathological psychological profile that sees the world in terms of "martyrs vs. villians" with the villians in the government, and the villians taking away or abusing respectable citizens. the "problem" of terrorism will be solved when we take the view that insanity and violence is *not* a natural aspect of human behavior (as TCM tends to suggest), and that there are specific environmental conditions that breed it. like malaria, if you take away the swamplike breeding grounds, you will largely remove it. such a thing is a radical hypothesis, but one that nonetheless has never really been tested in practice.
FBI Director Louis Freeh and the TLA spooks are already sounding the alarm about the "Four Horsemen." Sen. Sam Nunn is calling for measures to ensure that cyberspace is "secured" and that the Net is not used to further chemical and biological terrorism.
the military and spook establishments require threats to survive. I believe they are largely manufacturing a new one that has marginal actual danger content.
I'm not advocating such "terrorism," by the way, merely telling it like it is.
ah yes, the standard amusing TCM disclaimer. hmmm, your signature suggests otherwise.
Keep your head down, avoid crowded downtown areas, prepare for moderate disruptions, and reject arguments that an American Police State will do anything to stop terrorism.
once you lamented about the impractability of Duncan Frissel's suggestions for tax avoidance for regular people and a real society. many of your own suggestions seem to be to fit into the same kind of category of "not viable for regular human beings".
(Remember, terrorism is just warfare carried on by other means, with apolgies to Von Clausewitz.)
disagree. the purpose of warfare has traditionally been to seize something tangible like territory. terrorists are after intangibles-- namely, terror itself, disrupting a "peace process", etc. in warfare, the warfare is directly aimed at obtaining the "thing", like the way Hussein invaded Kuwait. terrorists do not obtain a physical "thing" by bombing some symbol. terrorism is extremely symbolic at the root. however I agree in the use of violence they are identical. Tim McVeigh apparently bombed the OKC Murrah building for a reason: he was pissed off over Waco. in a country in which the populace believes that the government is truly "of, by, or for the people" you won't see this kind of discontent and barbarianism. terrorism is not normal but generally an indication that a nation-state has gone badly off track and neglected some important psychological need of some significant part of its populace.
participants (2)
-
tcmay@got.net
-
Vladimir Z. Nuri