The Internet of things

Discourse suggests that the current trajectory of the Internet is heading towards an era where the most mundane items will be in some way connected to the flow of information, in that they will have the ability to perform tasks on demand, transferring us data, in a way never previously experienced before.

For example consider a mirror which with knowledge of your favourite colours and eye colour suggests different shades of eye shadow. Or a wardrobe that possesses knowledge of your web browsing history in terms of online shopping and suggests possible clothes that you might wish to purchase online. These are only ideas that I have made up but there are more tangible example of this concept such as those depicted in the image below.

Possibly perhaps in the future the information that is dormant in our mobile devices and computers may become part of our physical world. This has been described as the “Internet of things”. Essentially it revolves around the idea of world that can be programmed and once their are enough of these devices established a seemless system of information that can move will be facilitated. It is enemy of the internet which a peer to peer system in which each node has equal power. In contrast these informed objects will become a coordinated single machine hidden from view but still widely distributed.

This is still a dream, however and for this to become a reality more devices must appear onto the network, more processors in ordinary objects, more sensors and more wireless programmes to extract information from the already existing platforms. Devices must then become more reliable upon one another, so that they can coordinate actions without any human intervention. These connected devices must then become widespread and ubiquitous. A system which runs similar to a computer or an iPhone but on a more expansive scale. Essentially it could completely change the way we interact with one another. That line between the virtual and the everyday may become blurred. This may work to fight against the current saturation of devices that currently exist. Which I am happy about, I dislike this scary encroachment of technology on our lives, especially in a social context by automating devices we would usually use by hand.

A potential concern however is privacy. Though over sharing is a habit within the current digital ecology. If this were to extend to the physical world, objects could begin to capture more and more information about how we are doing. This threat is just a further representation of the issue of power which permeates every human society. Where power resides and the implications if it is used immorally. I will be staying positive however go objects!!!!

References

Mitew,T “The Internet of things” 2013, viewed 23/10/2014, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tFTNJwlpOg&gt;.

Image credit: Andrew Patterson, “The Internet of things”  viewed 23/10/2014 <https://iconewsblog.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/the-internet-of-things-what-is-it-and-what-does-it-mean-for-you/&gt;.

Leak in the System.

Cyberlibertarianism  which appears to have coincided with the early creation of the web, adhere’s to the libertarian worldview that emphasizes human rights, anti-authoritarianism and protection of privacy. It is a movement which “led to the rise of the hacker subculture” (Mitew) a subculture that detests any form of state censorship or surveillance of the internet, action’s which it perceives as a threat to a healthy exercise of democracy and injures the economic development of nations. It is this movement that has fed and encapsulates individuals and organisations such as Wikileaks, Anonymous, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden. It has become a form of political protest that utilizes computers and computer programming. In many ways this subculture represents the gradual radicalization of the internet. As Julian Assange stated to Eric Schmidt in April “That’s the most optimistic thing that is happening – the rationalization of the Internet-educated youth, people who are receiving their values from the Internet,”

Early hacktivists of the 90’s such as Barlow viewed the internet with a strict ideological purity. With Barlow stating in “A declaration of the independence  Cyberspace” “We must declare our virtual selves immune to your sovereignty, even as we continue to consent to your rule over our bodies.” Written in 1996 Barlow in an interview later reflected “We all get older and smarter.”Newer populist movement have in many ways replaced these older civilized and more principled groups. For example 4chan’s no rules /b/ imageboard which became inundated and generated the hacker collective Anonymous. It was conceived following a series of 4chan-directed attacks on Scientology websites in 2008 and is made up of the politically motivated and trolls. It has employed Dos attacks and disruption to achieve its goals.

Many of the prominent hacktivists are small collectives of specialized and talented programmers, rather than large-scale political movements. They appears often at odds with traditional activism, in that a few individuals can create such a disproportional amount of havoc without having to navigate the internal politics that plague the older and larger movements.

Often the core ideals of the hacker subculture; the free exchange of ideas and the importance of individual privacy are injured by the very movement itself. Defamation, identity theft, publication of personal information and encroaching on an individual’s seclusion or solitude are all actions which have happened as a direct result of hacktivists.Total freedom of expression can in many cases become an oppressive force. The anonymity of the Internet in which online lives can be carefully maintained provides protection and enables bullies, such as those responsible for the “fappening” to violate peoples privacy.

Interestingly their exists, extremely skilled counter-hacktivists such as the Jester, a pro-US government hacktivist who claims to have served in the US military. In 2010 with varying success  he targeted Libyan media organisations, Jihadist websites, 4chan, Lulzsec, Wikileaks and Julian Assange.

When Edward Snowden went public, he alleged that he did so, in an effort to protect his own personal safety. With a public persona it would be much more difficult for the CIA to discretely rid themselves of Snowden. But in doing so, the focus shifted from the NSA and its illegal activity, to the persona of Edward Snowden, his personal history and background. People seemed to forget that not only was the NSA spying on ordinary citizens, they were making enemies out of  allies by surveilling countries on a global scale.

Snowden was largely demonized despite there being no real evidence that the NSA revelations had a substantial impact on safety in the US or that the NSA’s widespread surveillance of communications improved national security.In actuality the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, appointed by the President, conducted an in-depth investigation following Snowden’s allegations concluded that the mass surveillance program was ineffectual and should be concluded as it operated in direct opposition to human rights and civil liberties. The leaks only really conclusively tell us that without any judicial support the government seized the phone calls of Americans without authority and that the NSA tracks user data from sites. Snowden recently stated that, “these programs don’t make us more safe. They hurt our economy. They hurt our country. They limit our ability to speak, think, live, and to be creative.” Most importantly of all perhaps is that it violates the first amendment, as it violates freedom of speech in a very real way, as we have now all been labeled as guilty until proven innocent. The governments actions are not only illegal but they seen to provide no other benefit than to military contractors.

Now residing in Russia on a three year residency permit, its ironic that the country responsible for some of the greatest acts of espionage in the cold war Russia, is now providing asylum for an individual facing 30 years in jail for two counts of violating the Espionage act and theft of government property. Rather than fuelling further debate about the accountability of government in what should be the strongest democracy in the world, people have chosen instead to focus on the ethics of the individual himself. Yes Snowden did violate an oath of secrecy, but hasn’t the American government committed a greater crime against its own people.

The same can be said about Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Although he may be a raging narcissist from most accounts, debate was squarely centered on him as a figurehead rather than the institution that chose him as a face for the name. Collateral murder, the wikileak’s video that depicts the brute murder of civilians and civilian children was blunted by the personal politics and hero worship of Assange. Even when reading the blogs for this weeks readings, debate raged over the figureheads Assange and Snowden, rather than whether government accountability is more important than national security and the rise of the hacker subculture. Much of the outrage about what the leaks themselves revealed was muted. It is understandable why organisations such as Anonymous want none of the personal politics involved with such public scrutiny.

References

Khatchadourian, R. (2010) ‘No Secrets: Julian Assange’s mission for total transparency’ The New Yorker, June 7. [URL: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian%5D

Benkler, Y. (2011) ‘A free irresponsible press: Wikileaks and the battle over the soul of the networked fourth estate’, p. 1-33 [URL: http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wikileaks_current.pdf%5D

Sterling, B. (2010). The Blast Shack, https://medium.com/@bruces/the-blast-shack-f745f5fbeb1c

Sterling, B. (2013). The Ecuadorian Library or, The Blast Shack After Three Years, https://medium.com/@bruces/the-ecuadorian-library-a1ebd2b4a0e5

http://reason.com/archives/2004/08/01/john-perry-barlow-20

The Dark Side

“If there be light, then there is darkness; if cold, heat; if height, depth; if solid, fluid; if hard, soft; if rough, smooth; if calm, tempest; if prosperity, adversity; if life, death.”

― Pythagoras

When nodes where accorded the capacity to route, compute and distribute information across a network, of their own free will, the internet was heralded as an unregulated space, in which everything and anything was possible. This digital universe full of information also culminated in an unstable environment, that was increasingly difficult to regulate and control.  Any system that exists without regulations will be subject to those who are willing to take advantage of its structural vulnerabilities and the internet is no exception. Hackers who exploit weaknesses within digital networks can be motivated by a number of reasons, sometimes profit, activism, intellectual stimulation or boredom. In addition they may have a more benevolent focus. Malicious factions who violate computer safety for personal gain exist and they are “the epitome of all that the public fears in a computer criminal”. Coined Black hats or Crackers these programmers break into computer systems and destroy data or cause the network to become unusable for those who are authorised to view it. Although much of the digital resistance online has been a positive force, not all members of the hacker subculture prescribe to its ethos. The ideological purity of the hacktivists such as Assange and Snowden is not the prevailing manifesto nor is this movement permeated by a spirit of playfulness and exploration.

The idea of the internet as the final frontier, a digital “wildwest” is a fallacy. The majority of individuals, myself included enter this “game of shadows” through a portal, an Ifuedal, whether it be google, Facebook or twitter. A walled gardens who’s central employment is to spy and record our personal information for those who posses power. As an online user I have increasingly become aware of my own naivety, especially in the wake of this weeks discussion. Our governments have replaced the 007’s and the KGB with a more persuasive and effective form of surveillance. A machine that deletes nothing and records everything, an endless creation of data in which information never dies.

This “descent into darkness” becomes more expansive when we consider the implications of cyberwarfare. These battles are not played out in fields or deserts, in open water or remote jungles but in surbuban office buildings, quiet rooms, in the presence of blank computer screens. In addition this battle is being fount with with some of the most insidious digital weapons that have ever existed, capable of infecting power plants and banks, destroying water supplies and fundamentally ravaging the very infrastructure that once appeared unassailable.   One example is The discovery of Stuxnet, a 500-kilobyte computer worm that infected the software of at least 14 industrial sites in Iran, including a uranium-enrichment plant. Although a computer virus relies on an unwitting victim to install it, a worm spreads on its own, often over a computer network. This worm was an unprecedentedly masterful and malicious piece of code that attacked in three phases. First, it targeted Microsoft Windows machines and networks, repeatedly replicating itself. Then it sought out Siemens Step7 software, which is also Windows-based and used to program industrial control systems that operate equipment, such as centrifuges. Finally, it compromised the programmable logic controllers. The worm’s authors could thus spy on the industrial systems and even cause the fast-spinning centrifuges to tear themselves apart, unbeknownst to the human operators at the plant.

Although the authors of Stuxnet haven’t been officially identified, the size and sophistication of the worm have led experts to believe that it could have been created only with the sponsorship of a nation-state, and although no one’s owned up to it,  leaks from officials in the United States and Israel strongly suggest that those two countries did the deed. Since the discovery of Stuxnet, Schouwenberg and other computer-security engineers have been fighting off other weaponized viruses, such as Duqu, Flame, and Gauss, an onslaught that shows no signs of abating. This marked a turning point in geopolitical conflicts, when the apocalyptic scenarios once only imagined in Science fiction

When listening to this weeks lecture, I immediately thought of the old anti-piracy videos that you used to be forced to sit through if you rented a movie or a DVD. It had urgent death-metal-thrash techno music in the background, and the words on the screen popped up, informing you that you wouldn’t steal a car, or a handbag, or a television, or a movie. It then proceeded to to inform you that “downloading pirated movies is stealing” and wait for it, that “stealing was against the law” it ended with a rather a  bleak message that in fact “piracy was a crime”.

Most people would agree that stealing is wrong. Yet most people myself included would be guilty of downloading illegally. Why is this, maybe because we don’t appreciate online piracy as an illicit activity which is worth obeying. Ted discusses in the lecture how the social parameters and protocols of memory retention have been established by individuals. “You wouldn’t record somebody without their knowledge” “You wouldn’t record a personal conversation without someones permission”. Yet this is happening online in which everything is being recorded and you are completely unaware of who is the culprit. Their is no set of established protocol for online data retention. Much like their is no great sense of public outrage or censure of illegal downloading. . We have established gestures and protocols for memory retention. Social parameters associated with taking a photo, recording a conversation, taking a selfie. But nothing in the face of a machine which default setting is to filter nothing and collect everything.

I thought it was interesting how Ted stated that all totalitarian regimes have been characterised by persuasive surveillance. This realisation made me kind of sad. Primarily because I have always considered myself a strong believer in the transparency of my own democracy. The nanny states and the dictatorships had little to do with current political climate that I ascribed to. I even remember waking up at 3am to watch Barack Obama’s inaugural speech. I was so full of reinvigorated hope and belief that the world was capable of positive and powerful change. Not to say that this opportunity has now been lost.

However my impressions where radically different. I saw US and Australia as a strong ally, moving towards a greater protection of the rule of law, the protection of private information and the facilitation of free speech. I was in Yr 8 so this may explain my idealism however the election of the recent liberal government and the actions of George Brandis in trying to give unlimited power to spies and secret police has left me rather despondent.

References

Moore, Robert (2006). Cybercrime: Investigating High-Technology Computer Crime (1st ed.). Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing.

Mitew, T 2014, ‘Dark Fiber: hackers, botnets, cyberwar‘, DIGC202, Lecture, [online] <http://prezi.com/iiied2_aa8tc/digc202-dark-fiber-hackers-botnets-cyberwar/&gt; Viewed 17/10/14.