++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Begin FWD++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>From: rkmoore who-is-at iol.ie
>>To: cyberjournal, cyber-rights, CuDigest, activ-l, wsn
>>Cc: Phil Agre / RRE
>
>Dear netizens,
>
>Are you fully aware of how extremely fragile and vulnerable are Internet
>infrastructures such as this list? Did you know that any Internet server
>(eg, " who-is-at sun.soci.niu.edu" or "@cpsr.org" or "@weber.ucsd.edu") can be taken
>off the air at any time with no warning by a "mailbomb" attack? ...that
>your personal email address and web site can be incapacitated in the same
>way? ...and that there is no effective way to prevent such an attack nor
>to defend against it? Did you know such an attack can be conveniently
>mounted by any sizable group of people who have an ideological axe to
>grind, or by a smaller group with only minimal software support (to
>automatically generate thousands of pseudo messages)?
>
>
>~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
>~-=-=-=-=-=-=~THE DANGER IS REAL~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
>
>A successful attack of this kind was carried out last Summer against IGC
>(Insitute for Global Communications), and IGC was promptly forced to close
>down a Basque-related web site that a Spanish citizens' group had deemed to
>be objectionable. Phil Agre (RRE news service) published the first
>announcemnt of the event that came to my attention:
>
> ~=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
>| Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 15:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
>| From: Maureen Mason <mmason who-is-at igc.apc.org>
>| Subject: IGC censored by mailbombers
>|
>| Hi Phil,
>|
>| [...]
>|
>| We host a site (http://www.igc.org/ehj) for a US group supporting Basque
>| independence in Spain and France, and have gotten protest letters over the
>| past 4 months saying that the site "suppports terrorism" because a section
>| of it contains material on ETA, an armed group somewhat like the IRA in
>| Northern Ireland, at http://www.igc.org/ehj/html/eta.html (the rest of the
>| site includes material on human rights, politics, other Basque
>| independence groups and hyperlinks to site with opposing views).
>|
>| But now the protest--fueled by ETA's kidnapping and killing of a
>| Spanish politician this month--has turned into a serious
>| "mailbombing" campaign against that is threatening to bring our
>| servers to a halt. We are also getting hundreds of legitimate
>| protest messages, which we can handle. What is damaging us is
>| thousands of anonymous hits to our mail servers from hundreds of
>| different mail relays, with bogus return addresses; there's not
>| much we can do about these short of blocking access from hundreds
>| of mail servers as new sources of mailbombings appear.
>|
>| Our other email users (we have 13,000 members) are having their
>| mail tied up or can't reach it, and our support lines are tied
>| up with people who can't access their mail.
>| -=-=-=-=-=-=~-<snip>-~=-=-=-=-=-=-
>|
> ~=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
>
>
>Shortly after this posting, IGC (a "progressive" non-profit
>service-provider) submitted to the demands of the attack and took down the
>Basque-independence site. The mailbombing then ceased.
>
>The attack was not only successful, but it was very selective (a surgical
>strike on IGC) - there was no general disruption of the net, minimal
>collateral opposition was generated, and media and officaldom simply
>ignored the episode (as far as I know). If it had been an attack on some
>corporate-operated server, and it had disrupted financial transactions, one
>could well imagine headlines about "net terrorism" and perhaps prompt
>legislation to "crack down" on "excessive" net freedoms. (Notice how we
>lose either way if such attacks become more prevelant.)
>
>
>~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
>-=-=-=-=-=-=~WHY YOU SHOULD BE CONCERENED~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
>
>Is this something we need to be concerned with?
>
>I suggest that it is; I will explain why; and I will recommend some simple
>counter measures - cheap "fire insurance" if you will - that should be
>promptly implemented by anyone who wants to retain some ability to "stay in
>touch" in the event of determined mailbombing campaigns (or net-attacks of
>any description).
>
>Fast forward to "-=~COUNTER MEASURES~=-" if you're already sufficietly
>"conerned" and want to skip to the chase.
>
>The means by which serious, but selective, net disruption could be brought
>about should be clear at this point... here's a fully plausible scenario:
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Imagine that a group of the Christian-Coalition genre were to
> make an issue of the fact that many "liberal" servers and web-sites on
> the net support discusson of abortion, gay liberation, revolution,
> pornography, and socialism. We've seen how even murder (of abortion
> doctors) has been a result of fundamentalist fervor - is there any
> reason to assume that a mail-bomb attack on "liberal God-denying net
> servers" would be considered "out of bounds" as a tactic to "stop the
> anti-christ" and slow the further erosion of "family values"?
> -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Substitute your own scenario if you prefer, but I hope it's clear that only
>_intention_ stands between us and the loss of our networking. If some
>activist group - on their own or via encouragement and support of "others"
>- takes it in their head to bring an end to widespread progressive
>networking, they can do it. And if legal remedies are attempted, it is
>difficult to imagine anything effective coming out of Washington (or the UK
>or Germany or etc) that wouldn't do us more harm than good. My first
>recommendation (:>) is to knock on wood and say "God willing" each time you
>dial in to the net.
>
>So the means and the danger are clear, and have been established by
>precedent. The remaining question is:
> Do we have any reason to expect that such an attack will in fact be
> mounted?
>
>Here is one person's view, received this morning over the wsn list:
>
> ~=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
>| Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998
>| From: <name suppressed>
>| To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn who-is-at csf.colorado.edu>
>| Subject: The REAL WAR yet to come
>|
>| This Iraq/US stand off business is just international snow ball
>| fights.
>|
>| Get this, the US says they want Iraq to honour UN decisions but
>| says in the same breath "we (the USA) will not honour UN
>| decisions. The Americans fall for that ?
>|
>| The REAL WAR will come when the USA will be attacked by
>| people of conscience from the ground through the Internet. The
>| US Govt will subversively attempt to close down or disturb internet
>| comunications to disrupt ground swells. The only interests the US
>| has is oil ! Fuelled by the Oil Companies. Think about it. This
>| GREAT Technologically advanced nation is not a nation of
>| electronic vehicles in the late 1990's. Amateur futurists like myself
>| could have predicted this scenario in 1960. I think it is time that
>| the world citizens of this planet set the record straight.
>|
>| Be prepared however for disconnection through the Internet !
>|
> ~=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
>
>
>The Oil Theory re/ Iraq is a bit simplistic, but the Effective Progressive
>Activism Scenario is one to take very seriously. There hasn't been a
>"real" protest movement during the Internet era, not one within an
>order-of-magnitude of, say, the sixties movements. If such a movement were
>to arise, if it were to create political discomfort for those in power, and
>if the net were being used effectively for coordination and news
>distribution (eg, worldwide distribution of videos of 'blacked out' protest
>events) - then it would not be at all surprising if counter-measures were
>undertaken.
>
>In such an event, various governments might simply close down servers,
>under some kind of conspiracy or riot-act charges. Or a "spontaneous"
>attack of the variety described above could be covertly encouraged and
>supported. The choice would be "theirs", and the tactics could be selected
>on the basis of PR-effect & political expediency. And the targets wouldn't
>just be extremist groups, they'd be the whole progressive communications
>infrastructure. At least that's what would make obvious Machivellian sense
>in such a scenario: nip problems in the bud, as it were.
>
>As the US persists in its determination to deploy new weapons systems
>against Iraq, and as global opposition grows and generalizes to the
>sanctions as well, we could be on the very verge of a political movement
>significant enough to show up on Washington's early-warning radar. If the
>net is doing its part in such a movement - as many of us are endeavoring to
>encourage - we should not be surprised by a bud-nipping reactionary
>response, in some adequately disguised or rhetorically justified form.
>
>If not Iraq, then the MAI And National Sovereignty, or Disgust With
>Corporate Political Domination, or, if we get our act together, All Of The
>Above. Corporate globalization has had easy sailing for too long, and has
>made too many enemies - an energetic opposition movement is only a
>spark-in-dry-grass away, by the estimate of this observer.
>
>You may think Internet is Unsinkable, but even the Titanic had _some_
>lifeboats; I suggest we don't steam unprepared into uncertain waters.
>
>
>~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
>-=-=-=-=-=-=~COUNTER MEASURES~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
>
>What countermeasures are available to us?
>
>The goal of countermeasures, I suggest, should be to facilitate
>communication-by-other means among people and groups who have come to
>depend on Internet in their political and educational activity. Obviously
>alternative communication means would be less effective than the net, but
>in time of emergency _some_ connectivity will be preferable to total
>isolation (ie: dependence on mass media for information).
>
>My recommendation is to identify who your "key net contacts" are - people
>whose presence you take for granted in your net communications, people you
>are collaborating with, people who provide you with important information,
>people who are likely to be in touch with others in an emergency situation.
>
>The next step is to contact those people NOW - while you still can
>conveniently - and exchange with them your phone numbers, fax numbers, and
>postal addresses. You might even go so far as to make preliminary
>arrangements for "phone-tree" or "photocopy-tree" protocols for
>distributing information, but most of us probably won't get around to that,
>life being what it is. The important thing is to have the necessary data
>on hand well in advance of need.
>
>If serious net disruption does occur, for whatever reason, it is critically
>important to observe certain common-sense protocols in the use of phone and
>fax numbers. Effective anarchic communications require a certain finesse
>and forethought.
>
>For example, if you're a member of somone's email list (eg, cyberjournal)
>you SHOULD NOT send faxes to the moderator such as: "Please tell me what's
>going on, I'm curious". That would jam up communications, and would lead
>people to disconnect their fax machines. Only contact "information source"
>people if you have important information that needs to be shared, or if you
>want to volunteer to be an "echo node" - to redistribute information to
>others. Other than that you should use your fax bandwidth to build up a
>"peer" network and then try to connect as a group with wider neworking
>efforts.
>
>Much of our technology would continue to serve us: we could still use our
>email software (Eudora or whatever) to create and manage our messages, but
>we'd fax them to lists of recipients or we'd print them - for posting on
>physical bulletin boards and kiosks or for copying and distributing.
>
>
>~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
>-=-=-=-=-=-=~A REQUEST~=-=- re: NOW -=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
>
>I hereby invite those of you with whom I reguarly correspond, or who would
>like to be on an emergency information-distribution network, to please send
>me whatever contact details you'd like to make available. Don't expect
>accompanying comments to be read, but please indicate your informational
>needs and your willingness to assist in communications support in the event
>of emergency. The information will simply be filed away (and backed up at
>trusted international sites) for the time being.
>
>I will do my best to see that this information is used only in emergency,
>and that any "unsubscribe" requests, so to speak, would be prompty honored.
>
>My own emergency contact information is below. Phone and fax will be made
>available on a TBD basis.
>
> ~=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
> Posted by: Richard K. Moore | PO Box 26, Wexford, Ireland
> rkmoore who-is-at iol.ie | www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal
> * Non-commercial republication encouraged - with this sig *
> ~=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
>
>
>