In a recent NPR article on cyberwarfare, attention is given to current international discussion on rules of engagement upon the electronic theater.
Naturally, viruses, hacking, and denial of service attacks are the first weapons brought to mind when the concept of cyberwarfare is broached. Interestingly, the governance of their use in times of war is likely to find consensus much more easily than another, less obvious issue; namely the right of ruling governments to determine the flow of information within their societies.
"[The Internet] is a hugely important [and] consequential political, social and economic tool. And powerful nations are going to try to wield it and shape it to reflect their interests. The network will increasingly, I fear, look like what they want it to look like."
So states Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith, author of Who Controls the Internet. This statement is certainly true. Unfortunately, when reviewing the reporting on cyberwarfare, we as conscientious citizens must remember to apply the same rubric to our government and our media. What are the unchecked assumptions that frame the discussion? How do we view our government's positions, incentives, and motivations?
At a U.N. disarmament conference in 2008, Sergei Korotkov of the Russian Defense Ministry argued that anytime a government promotes ideas on the Internet with the goal of subverting another country's government — even in the name of democratic reform — it should qualify as "aggression." And that, in turn, would make it illegal under the U.N. Charter.
At first blush, this appears to be an assertion of Russian determination to silence the voices of their people. Based on the history of Russian government, this is not an unreasonable conclusion. However, it is necessary also to view this as an informed understanding of the history of U.S. intervention in the affairs of foreign governments.
In that context, it seems clear that if we hold true to the ideals of individual freedom and expression, Russian citizens should be free to express their discontent with their government. The free flow of information with the purpose of supporting the voices of the Iranian populace, as recently demonstrated by that country's Green Movement, is commendable. However, the flow of subversive information expressly manufactured in a foreign state with the sole purpose of destabilizing a competing government is wrong. Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, Manuel Noriega, Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, Ngo Dinh Diem, and Suharto could all bear expert testimony to exactly how the U.S. is prone to involve itself in the affairs of other nations in decidedly non-altruistic ways. Their example can also offer additional reason for other nations to seriously consider how the U.S. may treat the world of ideological warfare in the information age.
Stewart Baker, a former NSA general counsel and an assistant secretary of homeland security under President George W. Bush, states that "It is a near certainty that the United States will scrupulously obey whatever is written down, and it is almost as certain that no one else will." True students of the history of American warfare should be driven to paroxysms of laughter by this assertion, and anyone who has heard of the prison at Guantanamo Bay should at least feel some cognitive dissonance.
This is where the U.S. hegemons ultimately have little to fear. When it comes to indoctrination, the great advantage that the U.S. has over other governments troubled by the flow of information is not a control of the information itself. No, far greater is the ability of those with power to control the interpretation of that information, to leave our assumptions unchecked. When the view of the U.S. as "responsible", "law-abiding", and "virtuous" is taken as the foundation for argument, then the ability of a population to speak the truth is in much greater danger. When a skeptical (but not unpatriotic) citizen does speak, it is even harder to be heard.
Just for further fun, and with no additional analysis on my part check out the following links:
From Forbes:
[A]ccording to the latest article in [Computer World], speculation is rife that Israel may have been behind the [Stuxnet] worm – and that it was designed to sabotage or even take control of the operating systems for Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor.
From Computer World:
Iranian government representatives did not return messages seeking comment for this story, but sources within the country say that Iran has been hit hard by the worm. When it was first discovered, 60% of the infected Stuxnet computers were located in Iran, according to Symantec.
And finally, for context on how Israel, and by extension the U.S., views its obligation to observe international law:
"Israel... is of the opinion that the flotilla incident is amply and sufficiently investigated as it is," said the Israeli foreign ministry in a statement.
"All additional dealing with this issue is superfluous and unproductive."