more on A very interesting question on news from the UK

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "John S. Quarterman" <jsq () quarterman org>
Date: August 10, 2006 10:43:51 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: "John S. Quarterman" <jsq () quarterman org>
Cc: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: Re: [IP] A very interesting question on news from the UK

> From: h_bray () globe com
> Date: August 10, 2006 9:24:39 AM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Cc: ip () v2 listbox com
> Subject: Re: [IP] more on news from the UK
>
> Now that the maniacs have our full attention, I'll ask once more the
> question I've asked before:
>
> What should a government do?  How far should it go, to surveil,
> arrest and
> interrogate the sort of people who'd plan something like this?   
> It's all
> very well to complain of governmental threats to our liberty; indeed,
> such
> complaints are a vital part of that liberty, so keep 'em coming.   
> But at
> some point, somebody's got to decide what we will do against these
> disgusting, murderous fanatics.
>
> And so the question:  To foil plots like these, what would IPers do?

Well, for one thing, IPers can continue to discourage use of
methods that have little promise of working, such as blanket scans
of all telephone numbers or electronic mail, which just increase
the haystack without making finding the needle more likely,
or national ID cards such as the British government has been
pushing lately.

And for another, IPers can continue to discourage irrational
language like "maniacs".  What characterizes plots like the one
just reportedly foiled (I say "reportedly" because I haven't
seen any details yet) and 9/11 and the Madrid bombings and
the Bali bombings, etc., is methodical attention to a longterm
plan. This is not the hallmark of maniacs, i.e., this was not
done by insane or wildly disorganized persons.  Looking for
maniacs is a waste of time, money, and quite possibly lives.
You don't catch a murderous criminal gang by assuming they're
insane, and it's unlikely you'll catch murderous terrorists by
assuming they're insane.  Using inflamatory rhetoric such as
"maniacs" can further erode civil liberties while doing nothing
to help protect time, money, or lives.

As to what could IPers encourage, how about more Arabic and
Farsi-speaking intelligence people, more intelligence and law
enforcement agents who understand the cultures that are producing
the terrorists and what their grievances are; maybe even agents
who can infiltrate them.  More interaction with communities such
as the British government botched in the past year after the
British Muslim community came to the government offering to help:
 http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm? 
story_id=7141669

Maybe we could even encourage accountability for the government
ministers who botched that.  Maybe even similar accountability
for similar botches in other countries; maybe even in the U.S.

How about more attention to developing real Internet security measures.
Two-factor authentication shows some promise; it's got its own problems
already, but maybe IPers can help.  I'm sure other IPers can think of
many other possibilities.

Liability for software vendors that ship widely exploited known
bugs and misfeatures would be another good step.  Even the
possibility of such government-imposed liability could be useful
in getting such vendors to clean up their acts.

Oh, and encouraging software diversity before the terrorists
use the existing monopolies to break the Internet in the same
way they just bashed the airlines; except worse, because the
airlines are much more diverse.

We can try to educate people and especially law enforcement that
not wanting to tell everything doesn't mean we have something to hide.
"If one would give me six lines written by the hand
 of the most honest man, I would find something in them
 to have him hanged."
 --Cardinal Richelieu, via Bruce Schneier

We can try to get intelligence agents and law enforcement to be
sufficiently trustable that the public and companies will tell them
things that are actually relevant.  The FBI's Infragard program is
an example of how this can work.

And how about encouraging governments to do something about the
circumstances that breed terrorists, such as encouraging civil
liberties in the countries they come from:
 http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=0006A854- 
E67F-13A1-A67F83414B7F0104&pageNumber=2&catID=2

We could even encourage getting the world off of oil, which
is what some of the least free terrorist-producing governments
use to prop up their regimes.  Plug and play internetworking of
widely distributed and diverse energy sources would do a lot to
get rid of centralized oil fields as global trouble spots.  Hm,
that sounds a lot like networking....

Now a word from an early networking expert, the man who started
the American colonial postal service, who had a string of
printing shops and newspapers up and down the Atlantic coast,
and who even started his own printing press and publications
in France when he was there convincing the enemy of his enemy
to be his friend:

 Those who would give up Essential Liberty
 to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
 deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 --Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of the Constitution
 and Government of Pennsylvania, 1759

Old Ben was neither a pacifist nor a foe of government.
He organized Pennsylvania to fight the French and Indians;
he eventually encouraged and participated in open revolt
against the greatest empire on earth; a revolt in which
much greater proportional loss of life was inflicted than
today, and in which about a third of the continentual population
was actively on the side of the enemy.  Yet he and his compatriots
insisted on liberty as essential.  Why should we do less?

> Hiawatha Bray

-jsq



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/