The Blog To End All Blogs: FakeBook

I enjoyed our discussions about cloaked websites. I found it most interesting, because I believe I have been responsible to some degree in making a kind of cloaked website. While the agenda was fairly upfront, I created a Facebook account for a cartoon character representing a company I was used to work for. Of course the account was mostly a joke, but it did entail acting as someone I am not. The account was for a "Goldy McMinemine," a character who would bring a softer touch to the mineral resource development industry. I know of several instances of people creating false Facebook accounts in order to find out information or to harass fellow users.

"Cloaking" occurs more often than we may even realize. Consider the Spam which frequently fills up your mailbox. Many of the emails are harmless, but some have a more insidious objective. Hackers will send out seemingly legitimate emails to unsuspecting users. The emails may include the logo of the company, a believable URL, and other features that lend credence to the message's legitimacy. The email will ask for certain pieces of confidential information (Social Security #, Bank Account, etc). Successfully "cloaking" the email involves convincing the user that it is legitimate and that their response is secure. The email may include a sense of urgency in its wording and presentation in order to push the user to respond. Millions of people have their identities stolen online by many of these seemingly harmless inquiries. One recent example involved a fake email from the Canada Post regarding subscription information. The scam included official imagery and "urgent" language in order to effectively deceive unsuspecting readers. Once the recipient opened an attached PDF, a "Trojan" virus would quickly make its way through their computer. These scams are common and can only be combated with the skeptical and informed eye of the email user.

The technique is known as "phishing" where a hacker literally "fishes" the web for users who would be caught by such techniques. A recent scam in Virginia uses the logo of a bank to catch people's confidential information. The phishing scam actually involved text messaging and phone calls on top of the emails. The police involved made the point that if you are in doubt - do NOT provide any confidential sensitive information.

CyberThreats - Foreign and Domestic

Last week I blogged about cyber-bullying and net “sabotage” with regards to political activism. This week, we discussed two other harmful uses of the internet: cyber-crime and cyber-terrorism. There are numerous examples of both in recent years. During the last presidential election, the personal email accounts of Governor Sarah Palin were hacked by a college student in Tennessee. The student sought information about Palin that would be harm her public image before the election. He posted several pictures of her inbox and several emails. Next week, he will stand trial in Tennessee for his alleged cyber-crime. It will be interesting to see what sort of precedent the case may set for future instances of high-profile email hacking.

In the realm of cyber-terrorism, the Senate has recently been discussing efforts by the Pentagon to set up command center specifically to counter cyber-terrorism efforts. The ABC News article points out that computer mainframes in “neutral countries” and the computers of innocent Americans can be commandeered and used by hostile agents during a cyber attack. It is a much trickier form of warfare as opposed to the open battlefield.

Dr. Akhavan mentioned the ongoing debate among scholars and experts regarding the actual threat of cyber terrorism and its real potential to cause harm. Is it merely a nuisance or is it a substantial threat to our security? I think it’s important to note that our national power grids and other utilities conduct a great deal of their operation in cyberspace. During a time of war, having the ability to take down electrical grids and communication abilities is an essential way to disrupt and disable an opponent. With the recent rash of cyberattacks originating in China, I think it’s important to realize that we are not the only ones who recognize the power and potential threat of cyber-terrorism.

We also discussed the distinction between cyber-terrorism for the purpose of inflicting harm (attack) and obtaining information (hack). According to the Fox News article, intelligence officials have acknowledged that several large-scale attacks on government agencies have originated in China. One cyber-warfare expert, Gary Elliot said, "There was a large government military or intelligence agency behind this." Considering the depth and calibre of the attack makes it clear that only an organized, government agency could have coordinating such an attack. The challenge is in proving WHICH government and WHICH agency was behind the attack.

Anonymous says...

I agree with David Weinberger that conversation is important in establishing common ground and understanding in a democracy. I also believe his analysis of “echo chambers” is fair and reasonable. It is not a failure for the Internet to have echo chambers. Weinberger articulates the point that having groups of people “egging each other on” is in fact worse than an “echo chamber” of like-minded believers. Weinberger cites the examples of the Huffington Post and RedState as examples of liberal and conservative echo-chambers. Both sites allow like-minded contributors to exchange and debate ideas from their area of the political spectrum. The contributors wish to share their views and consider others.

I think one point that the author misses are the instances in which “sabotage” users post nasty comments in an otherwise healthy line of debate. Some may disregard these occurrences as irrelevant and unimportant. Weinberger himself says that these sorts of outrageous comments are quickly moderated out or ignored. There’s one problem with that. Instances of bomb-throwers in echo-chamber blogs DO get the attentions of many mainstream media outlets. For example, if a conservative wished to discredit or delegitimize the Huffington Post in the eyes of the larger public, they could simply sign up for the site and start posting some outrageously bigoted remarks. In a matter of time, some of the comments come to the attention of mainstream media outlets who begin to label the Post as a “hate site.” And because of the anonymity which the internet provides, no real information about the bloggers can ever really be identified. There is no more effective strategy of silencing your political opponent and tainting their image. It’s really no different from a protester dressing up as a Neo-Nazi and attending a political rally. Once the cameras capture the outrageous figure, the candidate or cause is irreparably tainted. Mission accomplished. On the web, this is made even easier, because people are not physically around their peers, so no real accountability is possible.

As much as I enjoy my own anonymity on the web, I think it is one of the central problems in online discourse. It is a wholly different experience from someone announcing their views in a protest before a courthouse or in soft conversation in the privacy of their home. The point is that in these instances, the person is not separated from their words and their viewpoint. They can be shunned or ridiculed for what they say. In effect, there are actual consequences. I realize myself how easy it is to say something meaner or more ridiculous on the internet simply because your person isn’t attached to it. When we are responsible for our speech, we tend to curb outrageous or insensitive comments – because there are consequences.

Cyber-bullying is the extreme example of the potentially harmful effects of internet communication. Disparaging someone online becomes much easier than saying the same things to their face. Take the example of Phoebe Prince who was bullied in class and online until she eventually committed suicide. Some states are even considering legislation to target cyberbullies. I'm not sure if legal action is the best course of action. Educating people about the potential abuse of online communication seems like the solution as people devote more and more of their time to communicating online.