PC Mode
Org Mobile Site
Forum > Discussion > Backroom (Political) >
Thread: Wireless Internet as Defense Tool
Page 1 of 2 1 2 Last
ICantSpellDawg 14:50 06-19-2009
What do you think of centering our primary military strategy on spreading transparency around the globe? I'm sure most of us agree with the basic premise, but what are your ideas about actualization?

I have more questions than suggestions, obviously. Regarding our existing Defensive ship placement, why don't we provide powerful Wireless access in areas that we are otherwise static and waiting? In the straits of Hormuz, for example, our ships simply by sitting still could open up transparency for hundreds of miles, totally redefining and limiting the Revolutionary governments chokehold on information.

Information subterfuge has always been a focal point of our military, but we litterally have the ability to re-direct the most important aspects of trade due to the proximity of most hubs to water.

Anyway, read the small article and ruminate.

Disclaimer: It contains a damning opinion of the Republican's criticism of the Administration's stance towards the current protest, for those of you who generally ignore my posts because of the fanatically patriotic and awesome content.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Friday, June 19, 2009

The Reality of Generation Y's Virtual World.



We may find the Tweeters take political power and what are we going to do then? Talk about a paradigm shift.

- Dr. Anne-Marie Slaughter, Director of Policy Planning for the State Department, June 18th, 2009
There is irony that Dr. Slaughter was expressing this opinion on Wednesday morning, because this week Twitter has become not only a tool for channeling population centric political power against a government, but perhaps even a tool for leveraging population centric military power. As I observe the events unfolding online surrounding the Iranian elections, I see a sustained global, generational, multinational cyber skirmish against the current government of Iran with the intent of expressing political support for the Iranian people.

If that sounds a bit odd to you, all I can say is welcome to the 21st century, because you have just stepped into the reality of Generation Y's virtual world.

Virtual Terrain

One side effect of the US invasion of Iraq is the enormous investments that have come to the Middle East region, particularly in the form of telecommunications. It isn't just cell phones and cyber cafe's, the submarine cables laid to support the requirements of a western military presence include the requirements for the associated non-military activities and infrastructure investments necessary to support operations in places Western military's deploy. In this decade the Middle East has experienced an explosion in technology access, and one result from the higher oil prices that has come from the instability in the region is a modernization of most major global industries based there. In Iran, virtually all global business, particularly with China, takes place on information networks just as they do in the West.

Iran has 6 major telecommunications companies, but all internet traffic is filtered through the state owned Data communication Company of Iran (or DCI), which is essentially the firewall for network traffic in and out of Iran. Arbor Networks, an IT security research firm, has a network monitoring tool called ATLAS 2.0 which monitors about 80% of the global internet traffic. The last entry on Arbor researcher Craig Labovitz's blog lays out the cyber battlefield.
In normal times, DCI carries roughly 5 Gbps of traffic (with a reported capacity of 12 Gbps) through 6 upstream regional and global Internet providers. For the region, this represents an average level of Internet infrastructure (for purposes of perspective, a mid size ISP in Michigan carries roughly the same level of traffic).

One the day after the elections on June 13th at 1:30pm GMT (9:30am EDT and 6:00pm Tehran / IRDT), Iran dropped off the Internet. All six regional and global providers connecting Iran to the rest of the world saw a near complete loss of traffic.

Most Internet traffic to Iran goes through Reliance (formerly Flag) Telecom, the major Asia Pacific region underseas cable operator. Singtel, a major pan-Asian provider and Türk Telekom also provide significant transit. Initially, DCI severed most of the major transit connections into Iran. Within a few hours, a trickle of traffic returned across TeliaSonera, Reliance and SignTel — all well under 1 Gbps. As of 6:30am GMT June 16, traffic levels returned to roughly 70% of normal with Reliance traffic climbing by more than a Gigabit.
Many people are speculating why Iran is running at around 70% of normal. Most security researchers agree it is because Iran is conducting packet inspection, but the methods Iran is using to conduct packet inspection is purely speculative. The main point is, 5 Gbps is not much, and on the cyber battlefield Iran is not only limited due to bandwidth, but bandwidth control is limited due to probable ownership of Chinese IT hardware usually 2-3 generations behind western equivalents (often clones of western hardware 2-3 generations older than modern versions). Because Iran cannot conduct global business with partners without the internet, shutting down the internet brings economic problems that would only compound the political problems taking place in the Iranian streets.

For years strategic thinkers have suggested that the technological connectivity requirements for global commerce is a dynamic that will radically influence the calculations of governments that lack transparency. We are seeing that dynamic at work in how the Iranian government is currently managing this crisis of information control in and out of Iran.

Virtual Insurgency

I got into a theoretical debate with Professor Samuel Liles, Cyber Security Researcher and Professor at Purdue University. The debate is whether what we are seeing is open cyber warfare or hacktivism (terrorism in cyberspace). The answer to the question seems to hinge on scope, and how scope is defined. Joining the debate, cyber security and intelligence expert Jeffery Carr suggested a broader definition of cyberwar to be an extension of political will with a strategic objective. Professor Liles suggested that in order for what we are seeing in support of a segment of Iranian people to rise to the level of cyber warfare, there must be a full spectrum engagement and not just a single tactic or tool used. My argument would be that tactics are derived by strategy, and any cyber strategy in support of the Iranian people would not attack the infrastructure of the Iranian people, rather concentrate on preventing control of information networks by the regime (which is what is happening).

I have not settled that debate in my mind, and it probably isn't relevant.

What I do think we are seeing may be the first virtual insurgency supporting a political ideal (democracy) for people who are attempting to take power in another country, and clearly feel they were cheated from that power by the existing government. I also observe a broader scope of tactics being deployed, although I have not necessarily been paying attention to the influence of these attacks, or to what scale they have been successful or not.

The strategic weapon is clearly information, and the propagation of information is primarily used by tactical weapons including social software, proxy servers, tor, bit torrent, education, and I would suggest the most effective effort I have seen yet was a simple text website with mobile app downloads ready for install on popular cell phones used in Iran.

Can you imagine an act of cyber terrorism from the United States against another government where Esquire magazine publishes an article by a politically connected new media hacktivist who brags how he helped leverage Twitter to wage cyber jihad against the Iranian leaderships primary news website? Like I said, this is the reality of Generation Y's virtual world.
The link that I repackaged and distributed on Twitter this week was to a tool called PageReboot.com. It does exactly what you'd expect it to do: refresh whatever Web site you want at whatever frequency you set. Sure, the site's intentions center more on winning eBay auctions than, say, affecting the outcome of a democratic election, but democracy's a loose term in Iran. All people had to do, then, was click my link and leave it open, and the lie-spewing servers of The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) would be slammed 3,600 times an hour.

So anyway, my tweet didn't take long to catch on. (I work in political new media, so the people I interact with online really know how to make some noise.) And it didn't take very long for the IRIB site to start slowing down. So I tweeted about it, and e-mailed a few friends in the new-media world, who retweeted it out of courtesy and (somewhat mischievous) human decency. By sundown, our army of not-quite-hackers had swelled to forty or so, and just like that, the official news site of Iran was gone for a few hours.
I highlight that tactic for the purposes of noting the potential of social software to organize populations for purposes of political cyber sabotage. I want to clearly state the strategic objective of the virtual insurgency supporting the Iranian people is not to directly engage in the sabotage of Iranian government internet hard points.

The strategic objective of the virtual insurgency in support of the Iranian people is to increase transparency. Information is the weapon, not being leveraged by our government, rather being used by multinational peoples primarily represented by Generation Y. Information is being channeled to strengthen the network to insure the free flow of information into Iran with the intent of supporting greater output of information from Iran. All tactical aspects of the virtual insurgency that support those strategic ends empower the Iranian populations credibility towards legitimate democracy. It should be noted, the virtual insurgency is also supporting the objectives of those in opposition to the existing government who have a likely intent to reproduce a 1979 revolution.

Generational Trends

Diversity means something different to someone of the Baby Boomer generation than it does to someone in Generation Y, but the generations are turning out to be very similar. The political activism in the 60s towards causes of domestic freedom are not dissimilar to the modern era political hacktivism towards international freedoms. There were many grassroots organizational groups developed and cultivated in the 60s, and we call those organizational groups netroots today.

While the cyberspace activities in support of the Iranian people today are not officially organized by any single political party, Generation Y tends to generally be socially liberal, tends to engage in causes that organize in networks, and tend to get engaged in politics even as the majority of Generation Y can barely articulate a political policy or position (including their own). I'm politically tone deaf when it comes to issues, but as an observer of political movements I would suggest one reason Generation Y gravitates left is because the progressive base actively engages in activities that leverage networks for political ends.

When I got off work today I was forced to listen to a radio talk show host debate Pat Buchanan. The talk show host (Sean Hannity) was attacking the Obama administration for, in his words, "not standing up for Freedom by denouncing the regime in Iran like Reagan did the Soviet Union." If the official position of the Republican Party is to be reliant on the government for a token political statement, the Republican Party is doomed in 2010 because they are too old to get it, and too out of touch to see it.

The Obama administration can only screw this up by engaging in the Iranian dialogue, but with that said the administration would be very wise to find leadership opportunities within the spacial grid of the ungoverned, people initiated virtual insurgency many in the United States are supporting. Avoiding public engagement on the issue while providing indirect guidance for promoting a productive strategic objective like transparency and attempting to prevent tactical efforts that can cause damage to the movement taking place in Iran would seem to be a wise political policy. Getting both political parties on board for a simple, but unified strategic objective would also seem to be important. Allowing this Generation Y movement to act in unison, absent political divisions, promotes a higher chance of success and sends a strong population centric message to the Iranian people.

Why is that important? Because polls continuously show that Iranians have a higher opinion of western peoples than they do of western governments. This policy would literally put our best face out front.

There will be an enormous number of lessons in cyber warfare to learn from the activities we see unfolding. A 4GW model is clearly visible. We have non-state actors primarily made up of a younger generation of people living in the stronger economic nations of the world engaging in forms of cyber terrorism with the intent of producing political objectives. That non-state actor may even be leveraging military level cyber warfare capabilities against a political party currently holding state level power in a country half way around the world.

Somehow I doubt that scenario was previosly being examined in the Department of Defense's QDR cyber warfare discussion. Welcome to the reality of Generation Y's virtual world.


Posted by Galrahn at 12:00 AM
Labels: Cyberwarfare, Iran, Policy, Soft Power, Strategic Communications, Strategy





Reply
Lemur 15:15 06-19-2009
Hmm, transparency and information are changing the face of the world, that's for sure, and generally in ways that will benefit the U.S.A. I'm not sure you can call that a military strategy, however.

Great bit here: "In 1996 I went to Iran for Guardian Weekend. A doctoral student at the University of Tehran who was working with the team that was bringing the internet to Iran, told me that the internet would be the undoing of the regime."

Clear-sighted, no? And vindicated.

We should do all we can to spread the tools of transparency and free information.

P.S.: I wasn't worried about your "fanatically patriotic and awesome content," but rather the fact that your article begins with the phrase "paradigm shift." Despite that inauspicious beginning, it's very good.

Reply
drone 15:38 06-19-2009
I'm not really sure western governments want unfettered access to the web. While it works for us in cases such as Iran, we have too many cases of our own access being restricted and controlled.

Personally, I'm all for opening up closed societies and helping people make their governments sweat. But this proposal will mainly be used for pr0n.

Reply
ICantSpellDawg 15:59 06-19-2009
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Hmm, transparency and information are changing the face of the world, that's for sure, and generally in ways that will benefit the U.S.A. I'm not sure you can call that a military strategy, however.

Great bit here: "In 1996 I went to Iran for Guardian Weekend. A doctoral student at the University of Tehran who was working with the team that was bringing the internet to Iran, told me that the internet would be the undoing of the regime."

Clear-sighted, no? And vindicated.

We should do all we can to spread the tools of transparency and free information.

P.S.: I wasn't worried about your "fanatically patriotic and awesome content," but rather the fact that your article begins with the phrase "paradigm shift." Despite that inauspicious beginning, it's very good.
I use "military" and "defense" because our military would be carrying, utilizing and supporting the tools to facilitate this strategy. Additionally, they would need to defend it from the eventual disruption exhibited by effected regimes. Further, these actions would directly lead to a more liberalizing effect on the recieving nations, fostering more security for the US in the long term.

I use this along the same lines as I would transmission of propaganda, except that the propaganda is reality, but it would need to be pushed in the same way as lies and patriotic falshoods. The campain would be to further our interests, but at the expense of existing foreign regimes.

Reply
Jolt 17:00 06-19-2009
Originally Posted by drone:
I'm not really sure western governments want unfettered access to the web. While it works for us in cases such as Iran, we have too many cases of our own access being restricted and controlled.

Personally, I'm all for opening up closed societies and helping people make their governments sweat. But this proposal will mainly be used for pr0n.
In reality, the worldwide distribution of internet will ultimatly make the entire world be run, not by bankers or the Octosquid Conspiracy to kill the entire Kennedy clan, but by pr0n directors and Blizzard Entertainment.

Reply
Fragony 17:11 06-19-2009
In the end the idea is to use unarmed masses against armed forces, don't like it.

Reply
ICantSpellDawg 17:19 06-19-2009
Originally Posted by Fragony:
In the end the idea is to use unarmed masses against armed forces, don't like it.

No, No, No

It is giving freedom to people who are denied freedom by their government. Whether the individuals use it or not, it is up to them, just like you can either connect or not connect now.

I believe that this would be in the same vein as our non-combat military operations, like medical, food transport, etc. I'm talking about large Ships that carry free wireless internet with a massive radius along the shores of draconian states. I'm interested in the costs and practicality.

Reply
Fragony 17:24 06-19-2009
Would be a rather cruel masquerade if you ask me.

Reply
ICantSpellDawg 19:11 06-19-2009
YUO ARE A BUZZKILL

Reply
Lemur 19:18 06-19-2009
I still want to know why it has to be wireless internet. What do you have against Cat5e cable?

Reply
ICantSpellDawg 19:37 06-19-2009
Originally Posted by Lemur:
I still want to know why it has to be wireless internet. What do you have against Cat5e cable?
I love and use CAT5 cable and you know it.

Wireless is harder to stop. We could use a combo BUT wireless is harder to pin down and takes less land based infrastructure (which would probably be a drawback in a hostile country I'd think).

Maybe my idea is stupid, but if McDonalds can do it, so can we.

Reply
rory_20_uk 22:04 06-19-2009
I don't think it's that new an idea, is it? radio Freedom was pumped into East Europe for pretty much this reason.

But to have a use it does require a level of sophistication in the target country: North Korea's radios are hard tuned to the correct station and of course we all know about the Chinese firewall even if it not 100% secure.



Reply
ICantSpellDawg 23:02 06-19-2009
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
I don't think it's that new an idea, is it? radio Freedom was pumped into East Europe for pretty much this reason.

But to have a use it does require a level of sophistication in the target country: North Korea's radios are hard tuned to the correct station and of course we all know about the Chinese firewall even if it not 100% secure.

I believe that the level of sophistication in Iran is sufficient.

Reply
Husar 00:53 06-20-2009
If I get you correctly as in you want to broadcast the internet into countries, then no, it's not really possible.
You cannot just broadcast internet like that, the receivers have to respond, the WLAN adapter of a notebook in teheran doesn't really have the power to send data into the persian gulf and a ship that can get a recognisable WLAN signal from there to Teheran might just fry it's crew or something.
Did you know that a cellphone can heat up your ear by up to one degree celsius? And if I'm not mistaken, their range isn't all that huge either and the data connection can become rather slow.
The internet is different from TV or Radio since it's interactive, if you want to send them TV and radio, you can just as well use satellites but IIRC they're cracking down on satellite dishes, they might just crack down on WLAN signals with your idea, if it would work at all that is.

Ok, now I really pooped on your party I guess.

Reply
KukriKhan 01:55 06-20-2009
I like the concept, and using available resources (the military) to deploy is a winner.

First though, you're gonna hafta get the rest of the world literate; you have about 20% of the world (and much of the currently un-connected world) who can't read a lick in any language.

Reply
Hosakawa Tito 22:59 06-20-2009
They should set up wifi stations along the North Korean border and air drop Blackberrys into the madhatter's paradise....

Reply
ICantSpellDawg 23:14 06-20-2009
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito:
They should set up wifi stations along the North Korean border and air drop Blackberrys into the madhatter's paradise....

Hehe. North Korea is an area where this would not be effective at the moment.

Reply
Louis VI the Fat 23:31 06-20-2009
Islamofascism in the West is not the product of reading a single book, but of the internet.

Even so, I believe transparancy and information are the single best anti-totalitarian instruments. There is a reason why radio's in North Korea are hardwired to a single station, why China and Iran are banning websites, and why Bush restricted the freedom of information gathering in Iraq.*

*What? Think we'll allow a TuffStuff thread without partisan hackery?

Reply
ICantSpellDawg 01:08 06-21-2009
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
Islamofascism in the West is not the product of reading a single book, but of the internet.

Even so, I believe transparancy and information are the single best anti-totalitarian instruments. There is a reason why radio's in North Korea are hardwired to a single station, why China and Iran are banning websites, and why Bush restricted the freedom of information gathering in Iraq.*

*What? Think we'll allow a TuffStuff thread without partisan hackery?

I'm crossing battle lines on this one. I support most of Obama's foreign policy decisions so far - it is the same thing, with a different sales pitch. Semantical differences that are percieved as a different approach. I also acknowledge that the GOP needs to play catch up on the uparalled value of technological progress and the evolution of information in foreign policy.

Reply
Vladimir 19:45 06-23-2009
Oh Lord that is such a good idea!

Reply
ICantSpellDawg 22:31 06-23-2009
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
Oh Lord that is such a good idea!

The real reason is that I want boats running around giving me free internet.

Reply
Kadagar_AV 23:00 06-23-2009


Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
Beside yourself if radios gonna stay.
Reason: it could polish up the grey.
Put that, put that, put that up your wall
That this isnt country at all

Raving station, beside yourself

Keep me out of country in the word
Deal the porch is leading us absurd.
Push that, push that, push that to the hull
That this isnt nothing at all.

Straight off the boat, where to go?
Calling on in transit, calling on in transit
Radio free europe

Beside defying media too fast
Instead of pushing palaces to fall
Put that, put that, put that before all
That this isnt fortunate at all

Raving station, beside yourself
Calling on in transit, calling on in transit
Radio free europe, radio.

Decide yourself, calling all of the medias too fast

Keep me out of country in the word
Disappoint is into us absurd

Straight off the boat, where to go?
Calling on in transit, calling on in transit
Radio free europe


Reply
rotorgun 04:37 06-24-2009
What a naive idea. If only the world were such a place. What happens when the Wicked Witch of the West arrives on her broomstick to kill Dorothy and her little dog Toto? Alas! We shall douse her with the magic bucket of transparency!

All warfare is deception-Sun Tzu

Reply
Alexander the Pretty Good 05:42 06-24-2009
I'm a little disturbed at the idea of the US attempting to weaponize twitter against regimes it doesn't like (it's not about liberty when the military gets involved). I'm comforted that the ghouls who actually write policy are always going to be one step behind technological/social developments.

Reply
Vladimir 13:09 06-24-2009
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good:
(it's not about liberty when the military gets involved)
Yes, yes it is; from 1776 on.

Reply
ICantSpellDawg 14:18 06-24-2009
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good:
I'm a little disturbed at the idea of the US attempting to weaponize twitter against regimes it doesn't like (it's not about liberty when the military gets involved). I'm comforted that the ghouls who actually write policy are always going to be one step behind technological/social developments.

Oh come on. The military delivers liberty. What country acheived liberty without bloodshed in an acceptable period of time?

India became free because of World War 2 and the devestation of Britain. THEN they had to kill one another to break away further. The big sucess stories became free because they killed enought of the enemy to get them off of their backs. Like fire, it can be used as a tool for good or ill.

I'm not talking about invading or killing - i'm talking about creating trade and information hubs that totalitarian governments will have a hard time controlling. We use navies to secure shipping lanes - but I guess there is no liberty there, either.

Reply
Husar 14:29 06-24-2009
I don't know who here has me on ignore but I just wanted to point out again that you cannot broadcast the internet like radio, assuming that is about as clever as saying the internet is a series of tubes...

Reply
ICantSpellDawg 15:32 06-24-2009
Originally Posted by Husar:
I don't know who here has me on ignore but I just wanted to point out again that you cannot broadcast the internet like radio, assuming that is about as clever as saying the internet is a series of tubes...

Why not? Please explain? I recognize that digital signals are different, but what ae the limitations.

Reply
Alexander the Pretty Good 22:50 06-24-2009
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
Yes, yes it is; from 1776 on.
Like when we freed

Canada (attempted, anyway)
The Native Americans
Mexico
The Philippines
a whole bunch of S. American countries

amirite? (I'd add more but those are some of the really blatant ones)

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff:
I'm not talking about invading or killing - i'm talking about creating trade and information hubs that totalitarian governments will have a hard time controlling. We use navies to secure shipping lanes - but I guess there is no liberty there, either.
So the US Army isn't going to carefully monitor and control these information hubs?

Also, will these magical liberty-granting wireless ships be granting operating in Egypt and Saudi Arabia? After all, those are authoritarian and unpopular regimes. And the US military is all about providing assistance to those overthrowing authoritarian regimes...

Don't be foolish. This isn't about helping people overthrow their government because we want them to be free. It's about using communication tools to overthrow governments we don't like. It's rather telling that you call using wireless internet to attack foreign governments we are not at war with a "defense" tool. Much like the DoD, it's a complete misnomer.

Reply
ICantSpellDawg 00:22 06-25-2009
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good:
Like when we freed

Canada (attempted, anyway)
The Native Americans
Mexico
The Philippines
a whole bunch of S. American countries

amirite? (I'd add more but those are some of the really blatant ones)


So the US Army isn't going to carefully monitor and control these information hubs?

Also, will these magical liberty-granting wireless ships be granting operating in Egypt and Saudi Arabia? After all, those are authoritarian and unpopular regimes. And the US military is all about providing assistance to those overthrowing authoritarian regimes...

Don't be foolish. This isn't about helping people overthrow their government because we want them to be free. It's about using communication tools to overthrow governments we don't like. It's rather telling that you call using wireless internet to attack foreign governments we are not at war with a "defense" tool. Much like the DoD, it's a complete misnomer.

I want transparency. I'm perfectly happy watching the Saudis collapse just as soon as Islamic theocracies aren't there to gain from it. Freedom for everybody as a strategy, not a one size fits all.

Reply
Page 1 of 2 1 2 Last
Up
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO