From: "Deranged Mutant" <WlkngOwl@unix.asb.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 09:52:19 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Rambling about "Net and Terrorism" (long, slightly amusing, and
Message-ID: <199607021839.OAA07556@unix.asb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On  2 Jul 96 at 1:58, snow wrote/quoted:

[It's hard to tell what's a quote and what snow wrote here]

> Can anything be done? To stop the likely effects of lots more
[..]
> In a word, "no."
> /*
>      I disagree. Terrorism, political terrorism is fear. There are ways to
> protect military targets that are quite cost effective, unfortunately they
> are politically unpopular. (What just happend in Saudi is on my mind.
[..]
Yep. Terrorism is fear, but *no* target can be 100% protected. Not 
even military targets, though it can get difficult and expensive for 
someone to attack a target.  In such cases, terrorists would go for 
easier targets.

Terrorism is against a larger, vague target such as a nation or 
corporation or an industry or an ideology.  Instances are against 
representations of the target.... a military base is attacked because 
it is a symbol, not because it is strategic.  If said terrorists 
cannot attack a military base, they'll attack some soldiers on leave 
at a disco.

The symbolic importance cannot be understanted (though it doesn't 
mean that strategic targets are safe either).  So to get back to 'net 
related discussion: differentiate between use of the internet (and 
phone or mail systems) to plan acts and spread propaganda versus 
terrorist acts on the internet.  The former implies a need for LEAs 
to snoop, while the latter implies a need for high-security, crypto, 
etc.... they are not so compatible.

So let's say Wild Al's Church of Kookology and Jihad of Banality 
(WACKJOB) is planning a cyber-terrorist act.  They want something 
symbolic that will demoralize the United Statesers (USers), so that 
they will pressure the US government to stop it's Promotion of 
Internation Googoomuck (PIG) in some corner of the world.

It's counter-productive for WACKJOB to stop PIG by destroying the 
Federal Reserve's computers, paritcular because an economic collapse 
will keep USers from buying widget fluid from one of their sponsor 
countries.  WACKJOB would also be unable use counterfeit (or real) 
yankee greenbacks to support their enterprise... and likely this 
would have a negative effect on marks, pounds, etc.  Note that any 
wealthy kooks who couldn't give a damn about WACKJOB or PIG but like 
to show off their kook-factor among their other wealthy friends by 
bankrolling WACKJOB would also be adversely affected... and chances 
are WACKJOB will not bite the hand that helps it.

WACKJOB might want to disrupt communications so that they can perform 
a non-cyber terrorist act against PIG, but this might prove more 
difficult because the Management's systems of communication 
(telephones, email, cellular, courier, face-to-face meetings, etc.) 
is complex and distributed.  Also, WACKJOB would want the pigsty 
networks functioning so that the USers will know about the WACKJOBs 
sacrificed their lives and disrupted downtown traffic in NYC by 
leaping off buildings and splattering on the pavement.

So other than using the 'net to plan their WACKJOB (so absurd that 
the NSA gronk who intercepted the traffic had to be taken to the 
hospital with a hernia from laughing so much), what *symbolic* 
cyber-terrorist acts could an aspiring WACKJOB plan?

Keep in mind people value human life a little more computer records 
or property (excepting certain 'libertarian' folk).  WACKJOBs would 
attack computer systems that would have an immediate affect on USers 
lives... but not permanent, and ones that would still allow USers to 
know it was a WACKJOB.  It would have to be something that appeared 
to affect mainstream USers.

Perhaps interfering with transportation or medical communications that 
allowed for a mass amount of injury or death in a short, tragic and 
dramatic burst.  Seems securing these systems would be a priority.

(Question: possibility of two systems of crypto, escrowed for general 
public and unescrowed for institutional systems which are more 
controlled, and where LEAs can get some access to because of the 
institutional nature?)

[..]
> Civilian targets are harder to protect, but certain steps can be
> taken to lessen chances of a sucessful attack.

Lesser chances of being hit by a falling WACKJOB are not the same as 
no chance of it.

> Another method, and this would be very unpopular (and
> hypocritical of the US) would be simply to announce that we (the Country)
> are going to hold the _manufacturing_ nation responcible for the use of
> weapons of mass destruction. So if Soviet Nerve Gas is used, we gas a
> city in the Soviet Union. MAD carried to a lower level. 

Feh! Maybe the Russians hate the WACKJOBs as much as the USers, but a 
corrupt or poor gronk in

   O-+>|  ("The country formaerly known as Russia")

sold nerve gas to a WACKJOB... or some WACKJOB stole it.  Why hold 
them responsible?!?  And what if it was stolen from a USer?  Under 
that logic, we can go after the company that mined the steel used in 
the knife that killed Nicole Simpson (probably a few WACKJOBs would 
agree with that...)

> A third option is quite simply to buy as much of it as possible. 

So WACKJOBs make their own nerve gas from common household 
ingredients like Olestra and NutriSweet.  Then what?

>> I expect a city or two to get nuked in the next decade or so. (Haifa or Tel
>> Aviv would be my leading candidates.) To me, this is unsurprising.

> My bets in the following order:
[..]

So the WACKJOBs decide that the center of PIGginess conspiracy 
happens to be in some rural BFE, hiding under the guise of the 
Fritters County Malitia and Bible Emporium or maybe in the local Federal 
Bureau of Ice Cream and Prophylactics Building and nuke the small town you 
just happen to live in.  (Who would have suspected Oklahamo City?)

Many terrorist strieks against Brittain or Israel/Palestine did not occur 
in major cities.  Many did not occur in those countries, but on 
airlines or cruise ships, or in other countries where the targets 
are.

If you are a USer, you are a target for a WACKJOB.  Doesn't matter if 
you're in NYC or London or the middle of nowhere or taking an 
airplane from a WACKJOB-sympathizing country.  Doesn't even matter if 
you're a WACKJOB sympathizer.

>      I don't think that terrorists in the middle east will pop a nuke as
> they would get as many of their own as the "enemy". One of the things a
> terrorist needs more than money is a place to hide, and if you are
> killing your own people, they won't shield you. 
[..]

Why only mideast groups?  Why should *they* be the only terrorists? 
With the 'net, any group with a bone to pick can, in theory, go after 
bigger cyber-targets (in theory, anyway).

And why nuking? One can understand up-and-coming-regional powers such 
as Iran or Iraq, Pakistan, trying to get stolen nukes, but not likely for 
terrorism.

Not saying that no terrorist group would use nukes... but even a lot 
of stupid WACKJOBs know that nuking a major (or minor) US city would 
provoke a fierce response from the US, and probably a lot of other 
countries that felt equally under threat or wanted to disociate 
themselves from WACKJOBs.  If a WACKJOB's friends or family felt 
nuking was too extreme, a WACKJOB becomes a pariah.  Perhaps even the 
official WACKJOBs disociate themselves from the WACKJOBs who nuked 
some city...

Terrorists want to demoralize their enemies, not anger them further.

[..]
> One objective of terrorism is/could be to lessen a populations faith
> in "The System". Some possible situations [...]
> 
> Trash a multi-store pharmacy database and people can't get their
> prescriptions, or worse get the wrong one. 

Wrong ones? No. It can be recovered from, though with much 
inconveniencem for most people.  Trashing a computerized pill-making 
system so the wrong medications were in the wrong pills would have 
more effect... but would it demoralize faith in the system?

> Cause disturbances in certain parts of certain cities, then attack
> the 911 system to route officers and firemen to _wealthy_ neigborhoods at
> the expense of the poor neighborhoods. Then complain to the papers about
> it. 

The 911 system doesn't work.  Officers and firement only go the the 
wealthy neighborhoods in many cities and plenty of people already 
complain about it.  WACKJOBs want a terrorist act that would be 
noticed... contributing to the status quo isn't an act of terrorism.

> Gain control of the power grid (I don't know how possible this is)
> and selectively brown out certain sections of the city during peak demand
> periods. Make it obvious, then do the preceeding idea.  

Many places have backup generators or their own local systems. If you 
live in a hurricane or earthquake prone area your used to losing your 
electrcity.  Possibly one could get a utility's computer system to 
dosconnect thousands of subscribers for not paying bills, which would 
incite anger against it (though chances are their computer system 
would do this without any human intervention).

Differentiate between extortion ("give a million dollars to x account 
or all subscribers are disconnected"), vandalism/prank/K001 d00Z 
feat, system malfunction/bad programming, and WACKJOBs.
They cannot be lumped together as generic 'terrorism'.

It seems the pro-GAK and police-state forces focus on WACKJOBs when 
they use the term 'terrorists' (though they may label others as such 
for effect at times).

> In all of these people will, or could die, but are much more
> effective in undermining the faith people have in the structures that run
> the country. If a bomb blast goes off, people get pissed off at the bomb
> makers, if the power fails, people get pissed at the electrical company.
> If you can create a large enough disturbances they will be better than
> bombs.

What is one trying to accomplish by creating a disturbance?  To lead 
to a collapse of the nation state? Chances are widespread disturbance 
will lead to large-scale martial law, which would favor statists.

The focus has been on larger, 'sexier' and 'heroic' acts of terrorism
which are inappropriate to the 'net.  What if the WACKJOBs manage to
infect copies of Windoze 6.0 with a copy of a virus that destroys
PIG-related files?  Or if they vanadalize web pages, ftp- or gopher
sites with (what they perceive as) PIG-related materials?  Or a
WACKJOB cancel-moose roaming Usenet?  It also seems as if GAK-
proposals would be a hinderance to measure to protect against such
acts.

Another reason the 'net is a "terrorist threat"... it allows 
"terrorist" groups to have a voice.  Didn't a recent government paper
cite Zapatista communiques as an example of this?  Anti-terrorist 
measures are as much (if not mroe) thought 'protection' as they are
property/life protection.

"Terrorism" (as defined by the state) does more to stregthen the state,
by creating a nebulous enemy that the state can put an ugly face on while
seizing control to 'protect' itself.  'Cyberterrorism' is something the state
uses to claim jurisdiction over the cybernetic ether, or by which certain
consultants spread FUD for their own benefit.

Situationist's comments about the "Protection Racket" come to mind 
here.


Rob.


---
No-frills sig.
Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help"
Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl@unix.asb.com (root@magneto)
        AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com>
Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.