The power of words

After the Robin Hood airport closed (Doncaster, Sheffield) due to heavy snowfall, Mr. Chamber wrote a twitter post that was meant as a joke to friends and ended to be taken seriously by police officers. I quote the terms as they are essential: "Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!".
He may be charged under the Terrorism Act with conspiring to create a bomb hoax.

Tessa Mayes (privacy law and free speech legal issues), according to the article, said "Making jokes about terrorism is considered a thought crime, mistakenly seen as a real act of harm or intention to commit harm".

Several thoughts come to mind. Yes, any offence that does not require a tangible result and/or a tangible action not based on words (like buying explosives) tips the law towards thought crimes. Some hate crimes can be considered as thought crimes as what is punished is the expression of a thought qualified as being hatred. So some offences linked with terrorism (incitement to, for example; or here the conspiracy to create a bomb hoax) are in that sense a thought crime. Now, this is a choice: Parliament approved its condemnation; others disagree. The question is which power do we want to give to words? Where we draw the line is never easy and I don't think complete freedom of expression should prevail, nor I do share the Government's perception of security and necessity.

Beside this issue and debate, what I find interesting here, is the simple fact that I do not see how the offence of conspiracy to create a bomb hoax can even be committed, given the context. Obviously, the facts can only be analysed in view of what happened at the time (not in view of the fact that no hoax emerged); but given the weather, the airport closure and the Twitter type of interaction, it is difficult to take the post seriously. It is a silly post and the person who wrote it should have been a bit more conscious of his responsibility; but I can't imagine the offence existing in all its elements.
"Twitter joke led to Terror Act arrest and airport life ban", The Independent, 18 January 2010

On a similar note, -the power we want to give to words and where we draw the line between dignity of the person/victim and freedom of speech-, are the attacks Richard Dawkins, the atheist, endured. I do not share his atheist (and that does not make me a creationist, because frankly to consider that the world was created in seven days is a total negation of the bible's message which has nothing to do with providing a history of human kind, but an understanding of our present day situation- In hebrew, Genesis starts by "Bereshit", in other words, in principle, in the principle, not as most latin languages versions put it, "at the beginning" which implies a timeline - and while I am at it, Eve is not Eve until after the transgression: before the transgression, he is Ishah, the other side of Adam called Ish, like in Chinese medicine the Ying and Yang, the masculine and feminin of Man). So back to our story: I do not share his views but it would never occur to me to write with vicious language.
Now, even if it is improper, should we leave people free to do so? Freedom of speech tells that that even not pleasurable speech should be heard. But should we allow speech that fosters tribalism as the article puts it, or hate of others as I would put it? UK law has answered by saying no in specific situations (clear hatred of race, religion, sexual orientation and disability to some extent), but did not say anything for the rest. So is it all about education of people? education about words, their power and who we are in which society.

The author wrote a book on Cyburbia: the Dangerous Idea That's changing How We Live and WHo We Are, London 2009 (my next reading at Cambridge in a few weeks).
"When the net's wisdom of crowds turns into an online lynch mob" James Harkin, The Observer, 28 February 2010, page 31

The whole story made me think of an earlier article about a journalist, Lee Siegel, who was so tired of the vicious comments he used to receive on his blog that he created a personna to counteract it, with nobody realising it was the same person. 1) It says a lot about the degree of analysis use by people (one should be able to recognise a style), 2) It says a lot about what speech is used for, in his case, silencing dissent (against Bush's policies). "Truth and consequences", The Guardian, 27 May 2008
And about distortion of words and its consequences on everyday life: Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: "Freedom of speech can't be unlimited", The Independent, 6 July 2009

If words were not powerful, they would not be used, including to start war or strenghten one's side. "PR groups cash in on Russian conflict", The Guardian, 24 August 2009

National Security/Defence and cyberccrime

Two incidents that just remind us of how fragile cybersecurity can be

1) the French army plane Le Rafale was affected by a well-known virus that found its way to the computer system running it
"Le Rafale cloué au sol par un virus" (JDN, 10 February 2009)

2) the Presidential helicopter could be targeted as information was leaked via the filesharing software in the computer
"US Contractor Follows Japanese Example: Leaks Military Secrets Via P2P" (TechDirt, 2 March 2009)

See previous post today about human error: http://cybercrimeatessex.blogspot.com/2009/03/fraud-on-social-networks-security-or.html


Would non cyber data be safer? Well, it all depends on what security measures have been implemented! "Le papier plus exposé que les données informatiques" (JDN, 9 February 2009) - (Paper more exposed than electronic data)

Terrorist search -use of language searches

I read the post sent by Statewatch in its last newsletter. I clicked rather out of habit/curiosity than anything else, but what I read, I found deeply disturbing. Please read the whole post before reading mine - you will then understanding exactly what I mean.

Those are extracts on which my analysis is based:
"Andrej works as a sociologist on issues such as gentrification and the situation of tenants. Outside academia he is actively involved in tenants' organizations and movements that deal with gentrification and urban development. Using words such as 'gentrification', 'marxist-leninist', 'precarisation' oder 'reproduction' in their texts was enough to start complete surveillance (a linguistic analysis by the Federal Police later showed it's most unlikely they wrote these texts). "

My interpretation is as follow: the police is simply using extensive powers not to do their job.
As a researcher using the web to find documentation (perfectly respectable by the way), I use regularly keywords. I also know by experience that what I want is NEVER EVER under the keywords that I type. In other words, the most obvious range of keywords will lead me to documents I don't really have any use for. Anybody using the web extensively knows that.
I worked on an article about hatecrime in cyberspace - I wanted the UN Human rights committee decision on Faurisson - I typed Faurisson & decision and used google.com. The revisionist website of aaargh came up (it does not, by the way, if you use google.fr - the website is blocked). Now linguisticly, the website never uses any offensive language; the decision published should be questioned for its reliability because it is not the official UN website (even if it is not unreliable). Conversely, although I have not done personally conducted such research, those who look at websites from neo-nazis and the like all know that the obvious words of nazis won't bring you many websites; that the most dangerous and scary stuff appear at random under the most unlikely headings (see Roversi's book on Hatecrime).
Coming back to this post I refer to, what does it mean? that the German police simply should get a grip with technology and a tutorial on internet/google searches held by librarians could actually help them understanding the fundamental flaw of their investigation practices. They used words they associate with terrorism and terrorists to conduct their search, but no other ground work substantiated their analysis before they sought permission to wiretap!!! Which, by the way, shows also how clueless the judges are...

the rest of the investigation seems also a lot of rubbish based on assumptions rather than real facts. To suspect somebody because they don't use mobile phones sometimes or do not say things on the phone or encrypt their e-mails can have several explanations. I don't use a mobile phone; I certainly will NOT say certain things on the phone or by e-mail; and if I don't encrypt usually, I certainly could do so sometimes, for security purposes because I don't want anybody knowing. But that does not make me a terrorism.
If I were politically active, would the situation change? no, because my ideas of dissent do not make me suspect of mass murder, just because I dissent.

Investigation - Interception of com... - terrorism

I always found the whole idea and process of Guatanamo scary, unjustifiable and a flagrant violation of what we stand for, i.e. human rights. The use of terrorism legislation is part of the problem as it circonvenes most if not all safeguards democracy took so long to implement in the course of criminal investigations and trials. After centuries of fighting for fairness, in less than a decade, we went back to the Middle Ages and for the UK, the Star Chamber.
This issue of warrantless wiretapping is just one example out of many..."Warrantless Wiretapping Lawsuit Allowed To Move Forward Despite Ridiculous Levels Of Secrecy" (TechDirt, 6 January 2009)
Is it the legacy we want to give to our children?

aiding terrorist and google earth

Aiding and abetting terrorism! poor Google! this is silly because google earth in itself is not made to create crime. It's not like bomb making and use of firearms type of documentation that circulates so easily on the web.

"Indian Court Wants To Ban Google Earth In The Wake Of Mumbai Attacks" (10 December 2008)

Cyber-terrorism - possibility of death penalty in Pakistan

At first sight, for us European, it seems a heavy sentence that of death for cyber-terrorism. But it seems that the sentence is tied to a result: causing death of an other person, even it is indirectly by simply allowing access to computers. And death penalty is only an option, the other being life imprisonment. Comparing to the US regime, the US knowing also death penalty for murder, that is not so unreasonable. Note that Pakistan has not yet signed the Convention on cybercrime (http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=185&CM=&DF=&CL=ENG)
"Cyber-terrorism will be punishable by death" (7 November 2008)

Cyber-attack: politics

"Georgia accuses Russia of co-ordinated cyberattack" (11 August 2008) ; a war of words?

"Georgian president suffers cyberattack" (21 July 2008)

Hate crime and terrorism

The new trend, at least in the US, is to tackle hate crime via terrorism, by redifining some discourses as terrorist, instead of hate. The assimilation is dangerous for what is terrorism one day can become legal the next, and what is labelled terrorism does not necessarily promote hatred although it often does so. "Senator Lieberman Tries Hunting Down Terrorist Videos On YouTube" http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080519/1810061172.shtml (20 May 2008)

Cyberterrorism - Definition

An interesting comment about cyberterrorism by the Estonian defense ministry official Christian-Marc Liflander. For him, the last year attack on Estonia belongs to the realm of cyberterrorism; but as pointed out by Stephen Cummings, director of the British government's Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, this is far from certain. I would agree: not sure the evidence points out towards terrorism; to threaten governmental institutions does not by itself constitute terrorism - there must be an additional element, that of inspiring terror to the civil population. Although attacking official institutions is often linked to this purpose, the two can be separated. Finally, Mr Liflander partly contradicts himself as he said that little evidence can be gathered about where the attacks came from; so if no evidence of who did it, how can there be evidence of a purpose to terrorise?

http://www.crime-research.org/news/17.04.2008/3316/ (16 April 2008)

compare with the FBI assertion that the internet is used by terrorists groups to communicate, which seems to suggest that it is rarely used to attack institutions: http://www.crime-research.org/news/16.04.2008/3312/ (16 April 2008)


Related to terrorism is the question of national security. The US, or at least some US MPs, seem to have a broad vision of security and include governmental websites. Timothee Lee, from Techdirt, disagrees on the basis that those websites are not linked with the military's protocols on the net. Well, I would argue that it depends of what those websites are supposed to do. If they are the main portal to a wide range of services less and less available in the "physical" world, they may be considered as primary and integrated part of the life of a nation. The building of a city hall or city council where Government offers a range of services could be classified as national security; why not the websites? Maybe the question is linked with what we mean by national security: military or beyond?
Keeping Defense.gov Up Isn't A National Security Issue http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080518/1934151159.shtml (21 May 2008)

Cyberattacks - prevention by Governments

Four interesting articles about preventing cyberattacks. The first is about creating a real-scale cyberattack to see how the different targets would react and their level of vulnerability.
"International cyberattack drill tests nations' responses " (10 April 2008) http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39383325,00.htm

The second is about the response to an attack, i.e. an early-warning system, a bit like for tsunamis in the pacific?
"US plans cyberattack early-warning system" (video- 10 April 2008) http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39383335,00.htm

With the European COmmission (EU) urging Europe to strengthen its cyber defences "Commission eyes common cyber defences " (9 April 2008) http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/commission-eyes-common-cyber-defences/article-171476

and finally NATO! "NATO agrees common approach to cyber defence" (4 April 2008) http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/nato-agrees-common-approach-cyber-defence/article-171377
"Nato creates cyber-defence command" (9 April 2008)http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39382597,00.htm, with the irony of creating a centre in Estonia! http://www.crime-research.org/news/16.05.2008/3368/ (16 May 2008)

Danger of terrorism...

The US Defense is publicly annoucing it takes cybercrime seriously whether as a direct consequence of cyberterrorism or just simple cyberattacks. Nothing new, but ironically the internet was created by the US military... who now needs to train its own service member about security issues
"US reveals plans to hit back at cyber threats " (2 April 2008) http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39378374,00.htm

"Army Sets Up Phishing Scam To See How Gullible Service Members Are" (3 April 2008) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080402/194347734.shtml


and businesses also take the threat seriously "Accenture and Sun aim to widen security scope" (2 April 2008) http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39378365,00.htm

Cyberterrorism: renewed warning

Renewed warning about cyberterrorism but in a way nothing really new. Unless we link it to what happened to Estonia a year ago, where most of the official services were shut down because of a DDoS attack. If it was that easy with Estonia, why not with other countries' infrastructures? (10 March 2008) "Nato: Cyber-terrorism danger equal to missile attack" http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39364674,00.htm

Terrorism: imaginative detection or illusory means?

Apparently, the IARA in the US reviews Second Life for potential terrorists. The information seems weird, for how can they know who is behind a character in Second Life; second, what about the other offences committed on Second Life, like blackmail, fraud, drug dealing, probably by now money laundering? "Government Continues To Search Virtual Worlds For Terrorists" (26 February 2008)http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39352920,00.htm

Investigations and privacy: possible issues?

Here is the Statewatch newsletter of 22 January 2008 (01/08)Home page: http://www.statewatch.org - Enlightening if applied to cybercrime... Note also the old partnership bewteen UK and USA

"6. UK-USA: 1948 UKUSA agreement and ECHELON states behind "Server inthe Sky" project: Press coverage reporting that the FBI is seeking toset up a global alliance to target suspected terrorists and criminalshas not so far noted the historical origins of "Server in the Sky"project to collect and exchange personal biometrics and data. Thegroup behind the initiative is the "International InformationConsortium" comprised of the USA, UK, Australia, Canada and NewZealand. The same five states started intelligence gathering in theCold War era under the 1948 UKUSA agreement which set up a globalmonitoring system led by the NSA (USA) and Government CommunicationsHQ in the UK (GCHQ).And the very same five states set up the ECHELON surveillance systemin the 1980s which extended communications gathering on a huge scalefrom military objectives to political and economic targets bytrawling the ether for keywords, phrases and groups.Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, comments:"The USA and the UK have been running global surveillance systemssince the start of the Cold War through the NSA and GCHQ and theirscope was extended by the ECHELON system in the 1980s. For nearly 60years, since 1948, these hidden systems have been beyond democraticcontrol and now we see this alliance extending its tentacles to covernot just suspected terrorists but criminals as well. Its activitiesare likely to be as unaccountable as ever, by-passing standards ofprivacy and data protection."

Background
- European Parliament: Echelon report:http://www.statewatch.org/news/2001/sep/echelon.pdf

- Appraisal of technologies of political control (for the EP STOA Committee):http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/may/steve-wright-stoa-rep.pdf

- European Union and the FBI launch global surveillance system: AStatewatch report, 10 February 1997:http://www.statewatch.org/NEWS4A.HTM

- News report: FBI wants instant access to British identity data -Americans seek international database to carry iris, palm and fingerprints (Guardian, link):http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0%2C%2C332065468-103690%2C00.html

Cyberterrorism

The usual debate about cyberterrorism's theat: a hype or a truthfully worrying fact? ZDNet (10 December 2007)http://resources.zdnet.co.uk/articles/features/0,1000002000,39291413,00.htm

Terrorism, more comments

Statewatch, specialised in HR and civil liberties, is not particularly happy about the EU proposal. It is true that if the nature of the internet justifies any infringement to HR, then why not extending the policy outside terrorism, like for fraud where the costs are actually greater than terrorism's?

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/nov/03eu-com-terror-plans.htm

Terrorism without terrorism

Vice President Franco Frattini, the EU commissioner in charge of freedom, security and justice, suggested to modify legislation on terrorism, so as not to require a terrorist action to be committed. Nothing really new, but a way of reaffirming the importance of combating terrorism at its roots. Internet is viewed as a particular threat.
Yet how does one prove the intent if there is no active step taken towards committing a terrorist action?


http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/internet-targeted-new-eu-anti-terror-rules/article-168085

Hackers, DDOS and government - motives and legal issues

The Estonian government, earlier this year, faced a major cyberattack. Motives are unknown, but the disruption was important. Many features of Estonian life rely on computers: parking for example is computerised

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39290289,00.htm