The Future of the ‘iPatriot Act’

Future of the Internet
Friday, Aug 8, 2008

Larry Lessig’s generous review of the Future of the Internet makes an interesting point:

“Whether a single event, or a coordinated event, whether intentional, or accidental, it is simply a matter of time before a catastrophic network event happens. And when it happens — think of it as a kind of i9/11 event, but the bad guys are not Al-Qaeda — will we be prepared for the inevitable iPatriot Act response? Are we better prepared than civil libertarians were when we were hit with the USA Patriot Act? Have we even framed the right debate?”

First, will there be an ‘i9/11′, and second, will it prompt an ‘iPatriot Act’? The actual chances of a catastrophic network failure are pretty slim. But were one to occur, it would probably look a lot like the attacks on the DNS root servers in 2007. Here’s what happened:

The 13 Domain Name System (DNS) root servers record who controls the Top-Level Domains (’.com’, ‘.edu’, ‘.uk’, and so forth) and where. This file of information is quite small, and very few computers actually have to call upon the root servers to find the sites they’re looking for. But without them, the single Internet we’re used to would fracture, and computers would have no easy, reliable way to find the IP addresses they’re looking for.

(Article continues below)

On February 6, 2007, hackers issued a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack on the root servers, sending gigabytes of useless requests every minute in order to overload the roots and prevent them from responding to genuine Internet traffic. Such an attack was made possible only by harnessing the power of hundreds or thousands of ‘zombie’ computers infected with malicious bots.

The 2007 DDoS attack failed, however. Because the malicious network traffic was relatively easy to distinguish from genuine network traffic, and because most of the DNS root servers were able to distribute the requests over hundreds of component computers, only two of the 13 servers (each themselves made of dozens of computers) were affected. And this was the most successful such attack against the network. In order to noticeably disable network traffic, hackers would have to (in theory at least) destroy all thirteen servers.

All of this is to say that a catastrophic network failure, while possible, is unlikely. But that’s not to say there won’t be an ‘iPatriot Act’. In fact, we’re already seeing its development in agencies and hearings across the country, as regulators push policies that discourage open, generative products and encourage closed, tethered ones.

Take, for example, the Department of Homeland Security’s list of ‘best practices’ for software developers. Among the suggestions:

Don’t trust users: “Developers should assume that the environment in which their system resides is insecure. Trust, whether it is in external systems, code, people, etc., should always be closely held and never loosely given.”
Secure the end-points: “Attackers are more likely to attack a weak spot in a software system than to penetrate a heavily fortified component. For example, some cryptographic algorithms can take many years to break, so attackers are not likely to attack encrypted information communicated in a network. Instead, the endpoints of communication (e.g., servers) may be much easier to attack.”

In themselves these are not bad pieces of advice. But within DHS’s broader vision of online security, they indicate that the government considers safe technologies to be tethered technologies, and vice versa.

Take as further examples any of the current IP-enforcement laws working their way through Congress. H.R. 4279 would create an IP czar at the Department of Justice; S. 522 would create an entire ‘Intellectual Property Enforcement Network’; and S. 2317 would allow the Department of Justice to sue copyright infringers in civil as well as criminal court.

What’s interesting about these bills is that more often than not, Intellectual Property protection is packaged as consumer protection. In fact, just last month the Senate held a hearing entitled “Protecting Consumers by Protecting Intellectual Property”, in which witnesses and legislators advocated for the very bills discussed above.

What all of this amounts to is that agencies and officials are pushing increasingly closed systems of code and increasingly strict Intellectual Property regulations. Both of these encourage increasingly tethered appliances. We don’t need a catastrophic network failure to have an ‘iPatriot Act’: such an act is already in the works

• 
• Social bookmarks
• 
• Email this article
• 
• Print this page

Comment Terms Of Use

6 Responses to “The Future of the ‘iPatriot Act’”

1. Alienation Says:
   August 8th, 2008 at 4:30 pm

   First, will there be an ‘i9/11′, and second, will it prompt an ‘iPatriot Act’?

   Yes and yes. If history is any indication of the future these events will most likely occur and to the benefit of the government more than the band of cave dweller conspirators that said government will undoubtedly accuse. After these events happen one can expect a completely manipulated and fabricated source for news and events which will be regulated strictly by the government. Now that this story is out (as in all things) we can expect it to be in our future.

2. Darth Chaos Says:
   August 8th, 2008 at 4:46 pm

   An i-9/11 and an i-PATRIOT Act would result in mandatory biometric logins for not only internet access but to even log into your operating system. It would also result in the banning of all software which COULD be used to commit acts of terrorism. No more Linux and BSD for the proles. You either pay money for Windows Vista or Mac OS X, and if you decide to refuse to use both and decide to switch to Ubuntu, or a SWAT team will just come to your house and blow your head off.

3. Citizen of Servitude Says:
   August 8th, 2008 at 8:03 pm

   Oddly enough, those laws will bring about the end of the internet as we know it, which is the very thing those laws are purporting to protect. It is exactly the same as the real Patriot Act taking away our rights in order to protect us as citizens. The part that still makes me mad is that we gave those rights away willingly. There is an excellent book titled “The Future of the Internet – and how to stop it”. The makes the exact argument that the current trend toward tethered devices instead of generative ones it what will lead to the demise of the internet as we know. I hightly recommend checking it out.

4. KingKil33 Says:
   August 9th, 2008 at 9:35 pm

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ftfjhOaF4I

5. Giant Shadows Says:
   August 11th, 2008 at 8:27 am

   Dont accept what is going on-
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V5iCUBEUx4
   GS

6. cabe Says:
   January 16th, 2009 at 1:31 pm

   The same is being talked about here:
   http://forum.prisonplanet.com/.....80276.html