IP: Wireless networked world

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>


> [Note:  This item comes from reader Mike Cheponis.  DLH]
>
> At 16:44 -0800 11/13/01, Mike Cheponis wrote:
> > From: Mike Cheponis <mac () Wireless Com>
> > To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
> > Subject: Wireless networked world
> > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:44:35 -0800
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> >
> >
> >             Truly networked world could defeat terrorism
> >
> > Published Tuesday, Nov. 13, 2001, in the San Jose Mercury News
> > BY DAVID IGNATIUS
> > <http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/opinion/columns/ignatius13.htm>
> >
> >
> > LET us ponder a bizarre irony of history: It's possible that one legacy 
> > of Osama bin Laden will be that he pushed the global economy toward a 
> > truly networked world -- one where pervasive sensors could detect and 
> > disrupt terrorist attacks.
> >
> > Here's the logic chain that could make bin Laden, the bearded scourge of 
> > the West, into a global salesman for ``pervasive computing.''
> >
> > Some day the war in Afghanistan will end with a new government in Kabul. 
> > But even after the Taliban is gone, the war against terrorism will 
> > continue. The challenge is for people to continue ordinary life in the 
> > face of this threat. ``That is the ultimate repudiation of terrorism,'' 
> > President Bush said Thursday night. But how will the world cope with a 
> > terrorism problem that may get worse rather than better over the next few 
> > years?
> >
> > Part of the answer, inescapably, will lie in aggressive military actions 
> > that make the terrorists pay a severe price for their assaults. To the 
> > extent possible, those attacks should be covert and targeted at the 
> > terrorists themselves. And they should be coupled with new diplomatic and 
> > economic initiatives that offer a better life for ordinary people in the 
> > Muslim world.
> >
> > But lasting security will come from defense, more than offense. And here 
> > is where America's prowess in technology can help.
> >
> > The essential technologies already exist, in projects for pervasive 
> > computing and wireless communications that were developed in the late 
> > 1990s by companies such as IBM and Sun Microsystems. I've attended 
> > conferences where technologists described arrays of sensors that would be 
> > attached to every appliance in your house, and to every vending machine 
> > on every street corner. As you moved through the world, these wireless 
> > technologies would keep you constantly in touch with the environment 
> > around you -- registering your presence to every restaurant and 
> > department store.
> >
> > But these were visionary products in search of a real-world market. After 
> > all, would anyone actually pay money so his refrigerator could talk to 
> > the grocery store and order more milk? Did anyone really want an instant 
> > update on special discounts available at Wal-Mart the moment she happened 
> > to be passing in her automobile? Of course not.
> >
> > That's part of why the telecom bubble burst. Analysts realized that few 
> > people would actually pay money for many of the wireless services that 
> > would be available in a truly networked world.
> >
> > But security is different. Like life itself, it is something for which 
> > people will pay almost any price. Security means knowing your family can 
> > travel for the holidays without worrying about being blown out of the 
> > sky. It means going to work without fearing that a hidden nuclear device 
> > might detonate in the midst of your city. It means opening the mail 
> > without worrying it could be contaminated.
> >
> > Happily, these are the kinds of problems technology can solve. Sensors 
> > can be tuned to search for almost anything -- from radioactive material 
> > to anthrax spores. If people decided they were willing to pay the price 
> > in loss of privacy, a pervasive network of sensors could detect every 
> > human being present in a defined environment, and instantly signal an 
> > intrusion by someone lacking appropriate identification.
> >
> > The infrastructure for a networked world is half-built in the United 
> > States, and in earlier stages of construction elsewhere. The build-out 
> > has been stalled by the global technology recession, and it could use a 
> > jump-start. What better rationale for investment than that it can make us 
> > safer in a world of bin Ladens?
> >
> > By embracing pervasive computing as part of its defensive strategy in 
> > this war, the United States would be using networks to fight networks. 
> > That is precisely the recommendation made by David Ronfeldt and John 
> > Arquilla of the Rand Corp.
> >
> > The Rand analysts stress that bin Laden is not a traditional adversary 
> > who carries a flag, has a national base of operations and can be tracked 
> > and targeted by the technologies of the 20th century. The right strategy 
> > in a ``netwar'' is ``swarming'' the enemy, according to``Networks and 
> > Netwars'' just published by the Rand authors. ``Swarming will work 
> > best,'' they explain, ``if it is designed mainly around the deployment of 
> > myriad, small, dispersed, networked maneuver units.''
> >
> > Use networks to fight networks. That's a strategy that, over time, can 
> > give the world a measure of security. It will also prod us to resume 
> > construction of the Internet highway.
> >
> > If bin Laden's terrorism helped create a world of greater security and 
> > prosperity, we might even send him a thank-you note -- in prison, or what 
> > remains of his cave in Afghanistan.

[Note: This comment comes from reader David Mathes. DLH]
At 19:05 -0800 11/13/01, David Mathes wrote:
From: David Mathes <dmath () ns net>
To: dewayne () warpspeed com
Subject: Re: Wireless networked world
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 19:05:26 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Wireless networks can be used to provide security but it's still a double
edged sword. Security, anarchy and terror are equally supported under a
fully networked model.
The proposal to use a truly networked world to defeat terrorism is noble.
Ideally, the network itself would stop the threat to humans or humanity as
a whole. Realistically, some human intervention may be needed if only to
manage rumors which due more to feed the fears than actual weapons.
One key change required is the telephone company's fundamental premise: not
every customer will try to make a call at the same time.
This outdated assumption complicates things a bit given all the new
communications technologies of the past 10 years.
During one family tragedy recently I had five cell phones and two remotes
sitting in front of me. Call waiting effectively doubled the number
available. At one point nine people were on the line.
The telephone company has to move from a "less than one to one model" built
on the grossly outdated wireline "party line" whereup to 8 people shared
the same line.
The current system builds on this assumption during disasters by
prioiritized blocking on a major scale. During a disaster the
Telecommunications Service Priority system is enabled reserving lines for
emergency services while randomly given access to stateside calls. The
National Communications System is the agency but it's really a partnership
between the telcos and government with the government having the majority
vote for security, safety and health reasons.
However, there are at least two scenarios that a truly networked nation
could not defeat. First, an international flight with infected passengers
that have a disease with an incubation period longer than the flight so
that it would not be detected on their arrivel. Smallpox is an example.
Second, asymmetrical warfare requires not just early detection, but
predictive detection. With the exponential rise in destruction, early
detection on the exponential curve is needed to minimize loss.
Predictive detection would use existing patterns to generate model
profiles.
The difficulty is that predictive detection borders on being presumptuous
as well as affect the privacy and civil rights.
However, the current operating mode is a war time one.
Today, we heard that military trials will be used in many cases. The
presumption of innocence has shifted to a presumption of guilt for certain
foreigners on US soil. While that shift does not apply across the board it
certainly does apply to acts of national defense. And it has for some time.
To endorse a truly networked model as a one-sided solution in a world of
dual-use technology is naive. The truly networked model has many
advantages, but it is a highly leveragable, far reaching, asymmettrical
weapon that can be with effects far beyond the distance of any known
physical weapon (except perhaps a comet) and with such widespread impact if
only to deny service and create fear.
Other than that, it sounds like a good idea.







For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/