IP: (correction on Mike Nelson speech)

[Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

<x-rich></x-rich><x-rich>Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 17:01:27 -0700


From: John Gilmore <<gnu () toad com>




> WIRED WORLD WILL "DIMINISH NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY"


> A leading Clinton Administration official on information security and


> cryptography matters says that traditional notions of sovereignty, national


> security and warfare will be undermined by the year 2020, when the whole


> world is "wired" and e-cash is the norm.  The result will be less powerful


> governments in relation to criminal organizations such as the Mafia and


> international drug cartels, says Michael Nelson, who adds that organized


> crime members are already some of the most sophisticated users of computer


> systems and strong encryption technology.  In addition, computer crackers




I was at this conference and heard this speech.  He's being quoted WAY


out of context.  He said that the communications revolution will tend


to undermine geographical sovereignty, but everyone already knew that.


Mike didn't seem to be calling it a bad thing, either; he praised the


Administrations efforts to continue and accelerate the communications


revolution, e.g. by passing the telecom deregulation bill.




He *didn't* compare the strength of the government to the strength of


the Mafia, and didn't state that the Mafia would be relatively


stronger in 2020.  He did say that drug smugglers and organized crime


use modern computers and encryption in their operations.  I don't find


that surprising; most sizable businesses use modern computers and


encryption in their operations.




> will pose a more significant threat.  In response, Nelson advocates


> resolving the issue of whether unauthorized access of a computer is an "act


> of trespass" or an "act of war," and prosecuting the intrusions accordingly.


> (BNA Daily Report for Executives 6 Sep 96 A14)




The entire conference was on Information Warfare, and the discussion


of when a computer intrusion is simply a criminal matter (versus an


attack by another nation under the rules of warfare) was a serious


question debated throughout.  For example, a senior Army lawyer spent


more than an hour talking about international treaties on warfare, and


the UN's founding treaty.  He noted specifically that armed


retaliation in response to an "information" attack is in general


illegal.  It would amount to a "first use of force"; the information


"attack" was not an act of war under international law.  UN members


are pledged to use peaceful means to resolve conflicts, only resorting


to force when absolutely necessary.




Mike was speaking pretty extemporaneously, since he was a last-minute


replacement for a missing keynoter, so there may not be definitive


notes or transcripts of his talk.  But perhaps he'll comment, and if


he agrees, send a correction to BNA and/or Edupage.




        John






</x-rich>