The First Global Cyber War: Centralization vs. Decentralization

[ghoststrider.livejournal.com]

WikiLeaks backlash: The first global cyber war has begun, claim hackers | Media | The Observer

In a lot of science fiction, there is, in the story's past, many decades or even centuries or millennia before its subjective present, some sort of conflict that destroys the old order, and from its ashes rise a new one. We usually think of post-apoaclyptic fiction, ala Fallout, but this is not always the case; BattleTech had its "Second Soviet Civil War" which helped spurred the creation of a world government, and that can hardly be considered post-apocalyptic fiction. (Maybe apocalyptic, in some eyes.) Star Trek had World War III--in fact, lots of fiction had some sort of World War III--Halo had various conflicts on Earth and its intrasystem colonies...although this is a rather sparse list of examples, you get the drill. (In order to not distract myself, I'm not opening any new tabs to look for more.)

I've always wondered if we would have such a conflict, or some sort of event, in real life, that would fundamentally alter our progression into the future. Some have looked to the War on Terror or the iPhone as such moments, and while they are no doubt significant and important, I've looked to something more radical, more revolutionary, more fundamentally drastic. And since we're still not going to have AI during my lifetime, no matter what Ray Kurzweil says, I'm looking to human actions for such a sign.

Reading the above article, I felt what I was looking for for so long. Granted, a lot of it is no doubt The Guardian's own overhyping of the situation; they are, after all, a left-wing newspaper, and the Assange/WikiLeaks situation is seen as something of a left-wing rallying point (at least from where I'm sitting.) But I have no reason to doubt that the underpinnings of this article are, in fact, true. And when you read phrases like "seemed to be the first sustained clash between the established order and the organic, grassroots culture of the net," and "No one seems certain where the febrile cyber conflict will lead, only that it has just begun," you can't help but think that "Wow, something really big is going on. Something radical. Something that will change all of human society, perhaps forever."

I've been saying for the past two years now, almost three, that what's going on with the global recession and our economic woes is really the beginnings of the downfall of the old order. We've seen central banks around the world, and particularly in America, scurrying to protect the finances of their commercial backers while debasing the public currency, while governments bail out their corporate friends at the citizenry's expense and establish more rules that prevent those from the underclass from ever realizing their full potential and getting a chance to challenge the old dogs on a level playing field. Yet for all of this, what have they gotten? Barely anything. Although they've staved off a worse collapse (jury's still out on that one, though), their "success" is only fleeting. Already holes are appearing in the "jobless recovery," self-evident just from its name. There is no certainty we're out of the woods, and it appears that our "leaders" are just careening from one crisis to another. Moreover, although they've engaged in plenty of media massaging (and no, that's not a typo, I really mean that they're massaging the media) in order to improve their PR, it hasn't really worked. Certainly a great number of people have bought their message, but an even greater number haven't, and are either just skeptical or outright opposed to it.

This article, for me at least, crystallized and helped me realized exactly what is going on here. This conflict is not between libertarians and socialists, doves and hawks, Democrats and Republicans, or any other two groups. It is between two forces: centralization vs. decentralization. The former is the old way of doing things, with massive corporations buying huge amounts of influence with a central government, that increasingly micromanages not only its subnational units but also its own citizenry, infecting all aspects of life that can be arranged from a central authority. The latter is the new way of doing things, and is best exemplified by the "dooacracy" of Burning Man, the open source movement, Wikis, micromanufacturing, peer-to-peer services (of all kinds, not just file downloading), and DIY methods to all sorts of problems. While the 20th century was a period of centralization, the 21st century appears to be a period of decentralization, not only politically, but also socially, economically, culturally, and maybe even spiritually (goodbye to the Catholic Church? At the risk of offending my more devout friends, I surely hope so!)

This is only natural; as information has been spread, it is impossible to keep it all contained in one location. We've seen this most in the media sphere; in the past, large news organizations acted as the gatekeepers to information; only what they wanted to print or broadcast ended up in the public discussion. Through various means, power holders and the "elite" could keep the public in the dark. But with the rise of blogs, cheap recording equipment, and citizen journalism, no longer can anyone keep anyone in the dark. Wikileaks is a prime example; the original attempt at shutting it down only made it more resilient, spreading its information out farther, and now, as the article notes, it is effectively immune to attack. Unless every government and major corporation unite in a flawless, coordinated "strike" against the Wikileaks data, it will survive, somewhere. And potentially even then.

As for this war, I know not how long it shall last. It may be six weeks. It may be six months. It may even last six decades. But I do know, if it is not stopped in its infancy, our society will be changed irrevocably. With the power structures holding up the current regime already suffering structural integrity failure simply by how they're built, the application of some force will cause it to crumble into dust. It's possible that this First Global Cyber War will banish the state--or at least its heavily intrusive variant--into the annals of history for good, as people find new ways to work around the state and their corporate parasites shoving products into their faces 24/7. We're already seeing that those entities are not responding well to the hackers, as the shut down of Senate.gov, PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard's websites have shown. And if, god forbid, they gathered enough computers together and took down, say, the DoD network, we'll know who's won. (If the Chinese don't jump in.)

Looking at this, I can't help but feel that we're at a turning point. We're seeing the public itself, and its right to know, openly challenging the system of suppression and dominance we've been forced to live under for the past several decades. We're seeing the beginnings of an event that will forever change our history, and may one day be recorded in the history books paralleling the Battle of Marathon, the collapse of the Roman Empire, the invention of electricity, or the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Maybe.

May we live in interesting times.

Comments

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I don't see it. We have a bunch of 4channers using crude and easily avoided DDoS attacks. I mean, that's like bringing a club to a gun fight. If this is the "First Global Cyber War", then it is a case of cave-men attacking a citadel.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

As much as you want to think they're just a bunch of kiddies sitting in their parents basement looking at furry porn, they have actually managed to shut down the websites of some major players. Given that this is how they do business, do not underestimate the impact this would have, even if only for a few days.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The scandal over Wikileaks was not the turning point of the 21st Century. The alliance of France, Germany, Russia, India, and the PRC against the Invasion of Iraq with a great deal of success outside the USA in securing global opinion against that war was the turning point of the 21st Century at least as I see it. US power in the 1990s had depended on at least an appearance of being the more genteel superpower next to the Soviets' explicit dependence on force. While realists would note that there was really little difference in the proxy wars, the USA understood PR more than the USSR did.

Then in 2003 the USA proved it relied on force as opposed to good sense, and the rise of a new bloc of nations that were resurging to political power and able to negate the USA's marked the real "fall" of the USA from hyperpower to global power. Wikileaks and the furor over it is the symptom, not the disease, and it's a symptom of the problem of the American Empire and the dissonance between the methods required to sustain it and the theoretical base of US civilization. The disease is seen in the US reaction focusing not on this issue but instead on super-troll the magnificent bastard.

Pedantic Under L is Pedantic:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And it should be noted, Marathon aside, that Persia won the Graeco-Persian Wars, that Rome only fell in the West and lasted in the East for another 1,000 years as a Christian state and into 1922 as a Muslim emirate, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki did less to end World War II than Operation August Storm and the annihilation of the Kwangtung Army.

Electricity was the only one that really did do everything it's been said to have done.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I agree it's more of a symptom than a turning point, but I think it has the potential to be seen as a seminal moment.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"The alliance of France, Germany, Russia, India, and the PRC against the Invasion of Iraq with a great deal of success outside the USA in securing global opinion against that war was the turning point of the 21st Century at least as I see it."

Probably wouldn't be as significant without the US following up by hurtling itself into a depression. But the two events together are certainly going to go down as rather significant.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Great post; and I heartily agree about the implications of all this.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

It gets recommended.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I like this post, I also think something is afoot, and like you, I think it has to do with information and decentralisation. I think the whole situation will come to a head in 2015 when people rise up against the machine, angry at their lack of hoverboards.

Just a note:

the Assange/WikiLeaks situation is seen as something of a left-wing rallying point (at least from where I'm sitting.)

For a bit of perspective, our right wing party has backed him (this is Australia, given that he's our citizen, our response actually matters this time :P), so has our far left. Our centre-left are the ones who are looking for any way to hang him out to dry. Interestingly, that's the party who is in power.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

True, although you'd have to admit that the Liberal Party (that's the Australia right-wing party for you non-Australians) would be singing a far different tune if they were in power, because kissing U.S. ass would be that much more important and relevant to them.

As it is, being in opposition right, they can afford to be seen to be backing him, or at the least, merely silent, as they have been for the most part on the issue.

[mybodymycoffin.livejournal.com]

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, could you please explain the relevance of this?

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

If the Chinese jump in, the jubilation among the decentralization crowd will be short lived. China isn't too particular about freedom and openness, online or offline.

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

The idea is that, as part of this deal, "China" will lose its grip on the Chinese.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

"...paralleling the Battle of Marathon, the collapse of the Roman Empire, the invention of electricity, or the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Maybe."

Then again, considering the attention span of most of the 'hackers' on Anonymous, it may only have the impact of a Saturday night beer bust.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Actually Marathon had the same impact, what won the war Herodotus spoke of was the Battle of Salamis, not any of the land battles. Which the Persians actually did win. OTOH the King of Kings was leading a cosmopolitan power that was the only one before the 18th and 19th Centuries to abolish slavery in 6,000 years of recorded history, he led a monotheistic empire, what's more, and the Persian Empire was also the first global superpower.

And he was beaten by a bunch of feuding slaveholding polytheists who went for the sea battle only *after* they'd lost all the land battles and Athens had been destroyed. A war started because some of the Hellenes who were theoretically Persian vassals were too culturally chauvinist to be in good faith about it.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Cough (http://www.livejournal.com/support/faqbrowse.bml?faqid=75).

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I can't say that anonymous impresses me much.

But I'm old, I guess.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

anonymous are just one manifestation of a wider social sift. Think of this whole episode as a harbinger of things to come.

People getting angry on the intertubes just shut down some of the biggest companies in the world for a few days. I think that's what we need to be considering here. If you've read your Marx, you'll get the idea that out of the synthesis of socialism and liberalism we ended up with modern welfare state and it's antithesis, the corporatocracy. The fight isn't between citizens and the state, it's between people and corporations; this is the new world order.

.com vs .org

[light-over-me.livejournal.com]

I don't know whether or I'd go so far as to call it a turning point of western civilization.... but it is definitely a cultural turning point, I think. The internet and the digital age have definitely changed things forever.

I think for me, the first defining moment where I felt the tide beginning to change, was the shut down of Napster. Indeed, corporations, and especially those industries dealing with any kind of media or intellectual property (music, movies, software, etc), were the first wave. That kind of defined in my mind the moment where the internet changed from being a free and mostly unregulated place, and the struggle began. Surely, with the advent of e-commerce and anti-piracy campaigns, the internet was no longer just a place for 'geeks' or academics anymore, who could freely share whatever information they wanted to. And yet, online piracy still goes on today, all of our attempts to stop it, and I have little confidence that's going to change any time soon.

Other kinds of media have followed-- news, journalism, the rise of bloggers, social media, etc. This has naturally had effects on politics and social discourse. Now the old distribution outlets of news media are on their toes, like the record companies before them, trying to either compete and backlash, or change with it. And now most recently, with WikiLeaks, government has been very publicly hit.

This something that has been brewing for quite a while now already, with wikiLeaks being just another recent bullet in an otherwise very long list of events. It has occurred in multiple waves, and surely more to come.

So yeah, I think you could say this is part of the over all cultural shift, that the digital age has brought about. I don't think it's the end of civilization, or anything apocalyptic like that, but it has changed society.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I think you're right, but a turning point doesn't have be the ending of a civilisation. I'm not sure that anyone would argue if you said the 1960s were a turning point in Western civilisation, and many would say it was a turn for the better. Just like the 60s, there's going to be many events that are looked to as vital moments (and I think you may be right about the closing of Napster being one of them). We won't actually know which ones were the really important ones for some time yet.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

On a more serious note: you thoroughly underestimate the ability of centralized power to co-opt these forces of "decentralization" as you are calling them. Wikis and open source are just new instantiations of hobbyists who pour over arcane nuances of subjects like philately stitched together with better communication. The rest of the population mostly wants something they can use easily.

Some time ago, the NY Times magazine ran a story on how traditional marketing was becoming more nimble and putting out products at break neck pace and was learning to accomodate the idea of "brands" that would be on the shelf for only a year or two or even less to respond to fickle trends. You've lived in Japan -- you saw it in action. There are beverages there that are initiated and put to market in less than a year, sell like wildfire and then go away in 9 months. But it's all done centrally, and business theorists in the west have known for at least a decade that successful companies will learn to do this because the consumer worldwide is morphing into a bunch of 14 year old Japanese girls. It will look wildly decentralized and personalized to the consumer -- and that'll be enough.

This backlash from the "wild and free" space of the internet is not likely to amount to much of anything -- they had their chance to keep the net "wild and free" but that ended when AOL launched its first BBS for the Mac...in 1989.

[light-over-me.livejournal.com]

Wikis and open source are just new instantiations of hobbyists who pour over arcane nuances of subjects like philately stitched together with better communication. The rest of the population mostly wants something they can use easily.

This is a very good point... which is why, if corporations can manage to innovate and update themselves enough to offer what people want, easily and affordable, in the medium they want (digital), people will be willing to pay a reasonable price for it. Business models will have to change and update themselves to survive...and their is bound to be backlash from those dragging their feet... but they won't go away.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

We're seeing the beginnings of an event that will forever change our history

As usual, with these supposed revolutions, I'm seeing a whole lot of bravado, some minor inconvenience and not a whole lot of real substance. To call this any kind of war is nothing short of ridiculous. At best, it is a minor irritation.

The reason they choose dDOS attacks is because no permanent damage is left behind. As a result, any prosecutions would be based on annoying over-usage and not actual damage. It is likened to the civil rights protests where people clogged up doorways and diners. It is also like the doomsday militias that lock and load their pop guns, sit in lawn chairs, drink beer and say that they are going to start a revolution and overwhelm our military with 30-06 hunting rifles.

Our government is preparing for actual cyber-warfare. This includes infrastructure disruption, communication shutdowns, cutting military communication off to the point where we cannot coordinate or even operate military equipment. confusion of logistics, intelligence, security and mobility so that this is pure military chaos and other genuine warfare methods.

This is just hacker indulgence and child's play

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

alt text: STUDENTS ARE CALLING PRESIDENT JOHNSON EN MASSE TO PROTEST THE BOMBINGS AND IT'S JAMMED THE WHITE HOUSE SWITCHBOARD. COULD THEY COLLAPSE OUR CRITICAL PHONE SYSTEMS? HAS THE FIRST TELEPHONE WAR BEGUN? STAY TUNED FOR MORE ON THIS DANGEROUS NEW TECHNOLOGY.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I think you sound a little like the Christians assuming that the apocalypse is going to happen in their lifetime. They've been doing it for two-thousand years, give or take a couple hundred.

I mean not that bad, obviously we have world wars, but we have recessions too, without the world tearing itself apart. We've survived recession in the past, there's no reason it's going to trigger some great war now.

Will we see changes in our civilization? Yes, its always changing, always. Will there be violence from time to time because of it? Yes, there always is. That doesn't mean this particular case is a signal that there's something big looming *now* though.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

Yeah, or he sounds like left-handed people, saying stuff that is trivially ridiculous and makes them look like idiots. Left-handed people have been doing that for like two thousand years. I mean, at least. And he sounds just like them. (In this regard.)

[anadinboy.livejournal.com]

Julian is fighting a class war. Hes Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Not so much money, but the commodity of information.

The aspect i find the most radical is this idea that we can now pool our comps in support of a cause, all this allowing someone to hijack your comp to attack mastercard jive

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

I say return back to basics. Gold coins and barter deals. No chips, no cards, no hi tech nonsense. Like?