Last updated at 3:26 AM on 12th December 2010
WikiLeaks' publication of 250,000 diplomatic cables and the impact it has had on governments was the subject of my column last week. I took the view that governments would react with an attempt to regulate the internet.
There has been an interesting debate on the MailOnline website, with some agreeing with my argument, while others took a liberal and pro-internet line.
One view was well expressed by Stuart of Norwich, who thinks it is not possible for governments to regulate the internet: 'With a sophisticated network, clouds and 128-bit encryption and other techniques, closing down a website is impossible.'
It was the sheer scale of the operation that shook governments; not its content. Even so, if WikiLeaks was the main cyber threat, no one would be worried
I incline to accept that opinion, due to my teenage memories of the Second World War, when the technological battle was never conclusively won by either side until the development of nuclear weapons in 1945.
The freedom fighters of the internet world can be physically resisted - they are not personally invulnerable - but they seem to be able to counter each move in the technical development of security measures.
However, Roy of Southend does not share Stuart's view. He argues: 'The "internet" is, in fact, the sum total of all the corporate networks (private, academic, government, etc) interlinked for a common purpose. The naive belief in the freedom of the net ignores the fact that the "free" service is good only as long as those who run corporate networks can see an advantage for their own organisation.'
Governments hold the ultimate power of coercion, as one can see from the policies adopted by China. They may not be able to regulate the internet, but they can regulate the people who are operating the system, so long as those people are under their control. The limitation of regulation is that it applies to the operator, not to the system.
Undoubtedly, the world's governments have been shocked by the scale of the WikiLeaks operation.
Yet governments were able to cope with the reaction to leaks of 'secret' cables that seemed to be little better than newspaper comments about political personalities.
For example, any competent journalist could have written a comment on Vladimir Putin that was just as perceptive as anything from WikiLeaks - and without shaking the world. The leaks so far have largely been matters for the lawyers.
Cyber war can be a fascinating subject. WikiLeaks has brought it to the public mind, largely on the question of vulnerability
It was the sheer scale of the operation that shook governments; not its content. Even so, if WikiLeaks was the main cyber threat, no one would be worried.
There are, however, other cyber threats. There is a defence threat, either in terms of terrorism or, more remotely, of war. The Wall Street Journal last week pointed out that America's defence structure - the army, navy and air force - uses the internet in its communications and control system.
Cyber war can be a fascinating subject. WikiLeaks has brought it to the public mind, largely on the question of vulnerability. In theory, it would be possible for a hostile hacker to turn off Western Europe's electricity supply system, including Britain's.
The Iranian development of nuclear potential has incidentally shown that cyber war responses have become a natural reaction for countries that feel threatened.
Someone - or some country - seems to have used computer 'worms' to penetrate Iran's nuclear development and, for a while, shut it down.
It might be possible to infiltrate the control systems of nuclear missiles. At any rate, there must now be concern about the security of weapons systems, and we have to ensure that ours have not been primed to self-destruct.
More...
Governments are well aware of the military and terrorist potential of the internet. The public is increasingly aware of those threats. However, the internet is also the communications system of money laundering and cyber crime.
The old-fashioned criminal, who kept his stash of cash in a shoe box under the bed, is almost as remote a creature as the 19th Century miser who kept his hoard in gold coins.
Increasingly, the payment of tax is being avoided by companies that transfer to a more favourable tax jurisdiction while continuing to run a global internet business. Each company that leaves Britain leads to a reduction in tax revenue and jobs. Much of the good work carried out by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson in the Eighties has already been undone.
We know there is a drain of tax revenues from Britain, represented in some cases by the takeover of major British companies, such as Cadbury, which has been bought by American food company Kraft.
Politicians worry about the growth of tax avoidance when, in fact, they create it by putting up British taxes, which in turn encourages businesses to transfer abroad. Governments want to enjoy the benefits of the internet as a system of communications without facing the consequences of the internet's vulnerability and its extensive use to avoid taxes. They can't have it both ways.
The internet is not compatible with maintaining early 20th Century defence, economic or social structures. Governments will fight back and will have some victories, but the internet can be expected to win.
As I wrote last week: 'The hacker will always get through.'
No comments:
Post a Comment