The two articles that are assigned for this week: “Robot future poses hard questions” (BBC, April 24, 2007); and, “'Gated Communities' For the War-Ravaged”(Washington Post April 23, 2007); raise a series of complex ethical dilemmas. This is especially the case if one keeps in mind the conclusion of the Bousquet article about the limits of the effectiveness of "cybernetic warfare" and the example of the US "Operation Igloo White" in Vietnam from 1967-1973 (p. 27).
I have two questions I would like you to answer:
1) Does the Washington Post article indicate that the United States has learned the lessons about the limits of cybernetic warfare or cybernetic "counter-insurgency" as discussed at the conclusion of Bousquet?
2) If the United States is still in Iraq 30 years from now (2037), and has turned over surveillance and shooting of curfew violators in Baghdad to autonomous robots (mentioned in the BBC article), what would be the ethical and moral implications of this form of mid-21st century cybernetic counter-insurgency?
Friday, April 27, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
ICP 351 - April 25 and 27 blog discussion question
The readings that replaced Norris for this week are relevant for understanding "cyberpolitics" over the next 5 to 10 years, especially issues related to the militarization and securitization of the architecture of cyberspace, and research on human-computer interfaces.
In the Physorg.com article entitled "New Net Design Must Tackle Interests" a former US FBI agent L. Szwajkowski states "'building surveillance capabilities from the start could certainly cut costs' and that 'engineers and other Americans shouldn't worry.' 'In theory this would be an excellent idea, but I think there are political issues to overcome... There would be a reluctance to say you have an investigative agency at the table involved in a deep reworking of the Internet.'"
Why would there be such reluctance on the part of not only Americans and engineers but perhaps others interested in the configuration of cyberspace?
Two other articles, "Pentagon Preps Mind Fields for Smarter War Stations" and "The militarization of neuroscience," examine US DARPA research and the "militarization" of neuroscience . This type of research is inevitable, not only in the United States, but in other major powers (e.g. Russia, PRC, UK, etc.). What are the implications for global politics and the development of cyberspace raised by these types of technologies?
Before answering the second question you may want to visit US DARPA Information Processing Technology Office's description of currently active research projects.
In the Physorg.com article entitled "New Net Design Must Tackle Interests" a former US FBI agent L. Szwajkowski states "'building surveillance capabilities from the start could certainly cut costs' and that 'engineers and other Americans shouldn't worry.' 'In theory this would be an excellent idea, but I think there are political issues to overcome... There would be a reluctance to say you have an investigative agency at the table involved in a deep reworking of the Internet.'"
Why would there be such reluctance on the part of not only Americans and engineers but perhaps others interested in the configuration of cyberspace?
Two other articles, "Pentagon Preps Mind Fields for Smarter War Stations" and "The militarization of neuroscience," examine US DARPA research and the "militarization" of neuroscience . This type of research is inevitable, not only in the United States, but in other major powers (e.g. Russia, PRC, UK, etc.). What are the implications for global politics and the development of cyberspace raised by these types of technologies?
Before answering the second question you may want to visit US DARPA Information Processing Technology Office's description of currently active research projects.
Monday, April 16, 2007
April 18/20 Optional Blog Discussion Question.
This is an optional discussion question (optional because paper assignment 3 is currently due April 20th - although I may push this back to April 25th because of the disruption caused by the closure of AUCA).
On April 6th we ended class with a discussion about various hackers and hacktivist NGOs, and I said that we would continue this discussion. For this week, I would like you to discuss whether or not Gary McKinnon, a hacker from the United Kingdom, should be extradited to the United States to face charges of computer crime as defined by the US "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" for unauthorized access to US military and space exploration agencies' computers (US DOJ 2002). This is an interesting and highly complex case study of the multi-jurisdicitonal nature of cybercrime/terrorism and also is very useful for thinking through exactly what type of hacking can really be considered "criminal" and/or "terroristic".
I would like you to review at least several of the recent BBC stories about this hacker, and also look at the website that has been set up in his defense, and then discuss if he should be extradited. What if Mr. McKinnon was a citizen of the Kyrgyz Republic, would you still either support or oppose his extradition?
BBC Coverage.
April 3, 2007: UK hacker loses extradition fight.
Pro-McKinnon Website.
Free Gary McKinnon.
On April 6th we ended class with a discussion about various hackers and hacktivist NGOs, and I said that we would continue this discussion. For this week, I would like you to discuss whether or not Gary McKinnon, a hacker from the United Kingdom, should be extradited to the United States to face charges of computer crime as defined by the US "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" for unauthorized access to US military and space exploration agencies' computers (US DOJ 2002). This is an interesting and highly complex case study of the multi-jurisdicitonal nature of cybercrime/terrorism and also is very useful for thinking through exactly what type of hacking can really be considered "criminal" and/or "terroristic".
I would like you to review at least several of the recent BBC stories about this hacker, and also look at the website that has been set up in his defense, and then discuss if he should be extradited. What if Mr. McKinnon was a citizen of the Kyrgyz Republic, would you still either support or oppose his extradition?
BBC Coverage.
April 3, 2007: UK hacker loses extradition fight.
Pro-McKinnon Website.
Free Gary McKinnon.
Monday, April 9, 2007
April 11 and 13 ICP 351 Discussion Question
In both the ACLU (Stanley and Steinhardt) and the Rajan articles, the authors discuss different but related aspects of the "surveillance society" and "privacy". Are the concerns about a "surveillance monster" expressed in the ACLU report exaggerated? Is Rajan perhaps more than a bit naive when she states "technology and the growth of a post-authoritarian generation may help the positive aspects of internationalization to be more widely felt among Russians in the new future" (p. 638). Are issues of surveillance, privacy, and democratization relevant at all for understanding Kyrgyz or regional (Central Asia) politics?
Before answering the above questions review one (or more) of the following websites/articles, and incorporate your review of at least one of the below websites or articles into your answer:
ACLU v. NSA: The Challenge to Illegal Spying
Saralaeva, Leila. 2004. "Kyrgyzstan’s Not-So-Secret Service: Parliamentary report damns secret police as “state within a state” after detailing surveillance and subversion." Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR). May 28. Last accessed April 10, 2007.
Pasko, Grigory. 2007. "Speak Up, We’re Eavesdropping! A technician “under the roof” Conversation with an FSB officer (ret.) about the ins and outs of information gathering and information security." Robert Amsterdam's Blog. March 13. Last accessed April 10,
2007.
International Campaign Against Mass Surveillance (ICAMS).
Also the full text of the ACLU report was not included in the reader. I will copy the remaining pages and distribute in class on Wednesday. The ACLU article is archived on the ICP 351 server space, and can also be accessed at this url.
Before answering the above questions review one (or more) of the following websites/articles, and incorporate your review of at least one of the below websites or articles into your answer:
ACLU v. NSA: The Challenge to Illegal Spying
Saralaeva, Leila. 2004. "Kyrgyzstan’s Not-So-Secret Service: Parliamentary report damns secret police as “state within a state” after detailing surveillance and subversion." Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR). May 28. Last accessed April 10, 2007.
Pasko, Grigory. 2007. "Speak Up, We’re Eavesdropping! A technician “under the roof” Conversation with an FSB officer (ret.) about the ins and outs of information gathering and information security." Robert Amsterdam's Blog. March 13. Last accessed April 10,
2007.
International Campaign Against Mass Surveillance (ICAMS).
Also the full text of the ACLU report was not included in the reader. I will copy the remaining pages and distribute in class on Wednesday. The ACLU article is archived on the ICP 351 server space, and can also be accessed at this url.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Discussion Question for ICP 351 for April 4 and 6
Both Norris and Milone talk about "cyberpolitical participation", but different forms of participation. Norris discusses whether or not the opportunities for "civic engagnment" created by the Internet can trigger a "virtual democratic revival". Milone on the other hand calls on "hacktivists" to help secure the "national infrastructure".
Should "hactivists" actually cooperate with their respective national governments (as suggested by Milone), or should they develop technologies designed to secure the infrastructure from surveillance by any government, including their own?
Is "hacktivism" a form of cyberpolitical participation that could support, or constrain, "democratization" in both the developed and developing worlds?
Before answering this question review either (or both) of the below "hactivist" organization websites and projects.
Hactivismo: http://www.hacktivismo.com/about/index.php
Hactivismo's ScatterChat software: http://www.scatterchat.com/
CitizenLab: http://www.citizenlab.org/
CitizenLab's Psiphon Software: http://psiphon.civisec.org/
The Nemes article listed in the syllabus is a typo, and should be disregarded, it is not assigned.
Should "hactivists" actually cooperate with their respective national governments (as suggested by Milone), or should they develop technologies designed to secure the infrastructure from surveillance by any government, including their own?
Is "hacktivism" a form of cyberpolitical participation that could support, or constrain, "democratization" in both the developed and developing worlds?
Before answering this question review either (or both) of the below "hactivist" organization websites and projects.
Hactivismo: http://www.hacktivismo.com/about/index.php
Hactivismo's ScatterChat software: http://www.scatterchat.com/
CitizenLab: http://www.citizenlab.org/
CitizenLab's Psiphon Software: http://psiphon.civisec.org/
The Nemes article listed in the syllabus is a typo, and should be disregarded, it is not assigned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)