Cognitive Dissidents

How much do you trust the Department of Homeland Security to police the Internet and ensure that the networking infrastructure is "safe"?

This recent report by Kevin Poulsen gives a clue - and it doesn't make me feel more secure - especially as I have already registered my doubts about the whole "Net Wargames" exercise here and here - and have also pointed out that there has been a huge rise in the number of cyber-attacks and defacements during the recent war in the Middle-East.

So who did the Department of Homeland Security pick as the most dangerous threat to the USA in the recent "CyberStorm" excercise?

Hippies, and other "leftists" concerned with globalisation, privacy and security - those people who are meant to hardly able to recall their name because they are too stoned - were designated the "enemy of choice".

The attack scenario detailed in the presentation is a meticulously plotted parade of cyber horribles led by a "well financed" band of leftist radicals who object to U.S. imperialism, aided by sympathetic independent actors.

At the top of the pyramid is the Worldwide Anti-Globalization Alliance, which sets things off by calling for cyber sit-ins and denial-of-service attacks against U.S. interests. WAGA's radical arm, the villainous Black Hood Society, ratchets up the tension on day one by probing SCADA computerized control systems and military networks, eventually (spoiler warning) claiming responsibility for a commuter rail outage and the heat going out in government buildings.

The Black Hoods are a faction of Freedom Not Bombs, whose name is suspiciously similar to the real Food Not Bombs, which provides vegan meals to the homeless.

Another allied lefty-group called the Peoples Pact joins in, crashing portions of the power grid. Things get confusing when the "Tricky Trio," three evil hax0rs who are 50 percent more devious than the Deceptive Duo, hacks the FAA, issues false Amber Alerts, and manipulates the communications system of the U.S. Northern Command.

Then someone posts the No-Fly List to a public website (third act shocker: it's all nuns and Massachusetts Democrats), and opportunistic cyber thieves raid a medical database looking for identity theft targets. Logic bombs explode, wireless communications devices are corrupted, DNS caches are poisoned.

Why pick on Hippies? Why not pick on groups who are making real cyber-attacks on a daily basis?

Last time I checked all my spam and spyware was promoting Viagra, not cannabis, and web defacements were running 2-1 in favour of Hezbollah not Pink Floyd.

I haven't seen any comment spam recommending the Grateful Dead or LSD, nor a single web defacement replacing backgrounds with a tie-dye or paisley pattern ...

It might have something to do with the fact that Hippies don't have a CAIR type organisation that objects that the characterisation of "hippies" as possible "cyber-terrorists" could cause backlash amongst the "Hippie Community" who will object against the "stereotypical representation of Hippies" that borders on "Hippie-Phobia" and unfairly smears "moderate hippies" with the "radical hippie" label.

It also might have something to do with the fact that the "Enemy Within" is becoming more useful as a method of getting funding for increased surveillance, monitoriing, and tracking technqiues which reduce our freedom while doing nothing to make us safer.

Do you feel safer now that you know that the whole "CyberStorm" exercise was targeted at US citizens?

Or are you starting to wonder: are these new techniques of surveillance, expressly designed to monitor the "Enemy Within", destroying the freedoms that, until now, we have taken for granted?

When a huge exercise ignores the real threats to the Internet in favour of "anti-globalization radicals and peace activists" you start to wonder what the real agenda is.

Why test and refine techniques that could be used for the suppression of home-grown dissent when there are more pressing problems to be solved - like changing the default passwords on MILNET computers to ensure they are secure - or simulating a wave of web-defacements and attacks perpetrated by foreign cyber-radicals - in preparation for the recent wave of attacks by the "cyber-hezbollah"?

Why the emphasis on the "Enemy Within"?

Could it be that the "War on Terror" is being used to mask an assault on civil liberties - as suggested by the recent report by International Campaign Against Mass Surveillance

Global security and the "war on terror" now dominate the global political agenda. Driven largely by the United States, a growing web of anti-terrorism and security measures are being adopted by nations around the world. This new "security" paradigm is being used to roll back freedom and increase police powers in order to exercise increasing control over individuals and populations.

Under the public's radar screen, a registration and surveillance infrastructure of global reach is quietly being constructed. It includes the convergence of national and international databases, the creation of data profiles for whole populations, the creation of a global ID system, the global surveillance of movement, and the global surveillance of electronic communications.

The current system of surveiilance and control guarantees that when everyone is perpetually watched to see if they are a potential security threat - then everyone is a potential security threat

The logical outcome of the "War on Terror" is that we are all the enemy now.

Tags: electronic hezbollah, privacy, surveillance, propaganda, hippies, cair, new cold war, internet security, i-cams, cyber attacks, information warfare, enemy within