R Petty's New Media Blog

Over the weekend, I found two articles on the above topic that dealt with internet security from opposing viewpoints; however, both made strong arguments of which many of us will probably agree. One was about President Obama’s recent appointment of a ‘cyber security czar’ whose main task is to make all our inter-webs safe from cyber crime. The article contained some startling facts:

• Cyber crimes against businesses cost the global economy $1 trillion per year.
• Many cases of identity theft stem from hackers obtaining your personal information from computers.
• Cyber extortion (‘pay up or we’ll wipe out your website’) is a major problem in the corporate world.
• The U.S. government has admitted that the Pentagon’s computer system has been invaded by hackers from both China and Russia in the past, (Hunker, 2009).

In the last 10 years, four different sets of plans have been drafted on how to handle cyber crime, and who will regulate it. In a move that reminds me of our lesson this week on search engine advertising regulation, until now it has been the job of software companies in the private sector to ‘voluntarily’ take most of the initiative in how they design their software. The departments who are in charge of the government end of the regulation; the Secret Service, the FBI, the FTC, part of the Justice Department; as well as a wrestling match between the NSA and the Dept. of Homeland Security to see who runs it just makes me think there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Just like the Carter administration mucked up the whole business of nuclear power legislation in the aftermath of Three Mile Island, it seems there are too many organizations who are spewing differing directives and assuming that everybody is doing their part. What is really needed is a new committee with representatives from all of these above agencies who will discuss what part everyone is currently playing and how they can play together nicely. In my opinion, this new Czar needs to find out what the current standards are for each branch of the regulation game, and also involve the private sector to see what else is possible in the design of software and hardware. And maybe they should employ some of the best hackers. Give these losers who live to mess up my computer, make them abide by strict rules and pay them a lot of money so they don’t bite the hand feeding them.

Okay, so I’ve explained about adding more regulation, but what about monitoring computers less? This is not just the other side, but a new coin all together. The monitoring of which I refer is that of oppressive dictatorial countries who monitor their citizens and their personal internet usage. As I write this I think about when Bush signed over more power to the NSA to monitor domestic computer usage as a way to pre-empt and combat terrorists within our borders, (Nakashima, 2008), and I shudder. This is already happening in our country, and most of us never think about this fact. We feel for those persons in the Middle East and China who are subject to this. Chinese president, Hu Jintao, has even stated the “stability of the socialist state will remain at risk unless China’s multibillion-dollar cyber-police initiative can effectively ‘purify’ the internet…[by] control[ling] internet use and information” (Jianli, 2009). If this cyber initiative fails, China will lose their control over what information is relayed to the people and their hate filled propaganda will fall on informed and deaf ears.

I am all for helping another country of people to see the light, but who makes the determination on what is allowable and trusted information and what is propaganda? Consider our own elections. If you wanted McCain to win, you could read and believe that Obama was really in tight with terrorists and would lead the U.S. to defeat from the Middle East. If you were an Obama supporter, you could find a slew of stats on McCain’s love of big oil and big business and that he would tax us to near-death and then tax our right to get medical help. When a people is being led by a person or a party, there are going to be dissidents who disagree with how that party is ruling. In a free society, you can gain access to both sides. I agree this is important, but what if one side plays fair and the other side wages violent war on the first? Then who is really being protected by free speech and open internet?
This is a big head-full of ideas to wrap my brains around. Any thoughts?

References:

Hunker, J. (2009). “It’s a Jungle Out There.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved June 7, 2009.

Jianli, Y. (2009). “Online Toward Democracy.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved June 7, 2009.

Nakashima, E. (2008). “Bush Order Expands Network Monitoring.” Washington Post. Retrieved June 10, 2009 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/25/AR2008012503261.html