http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/05/lawrence-lessig-on-t.html

T0AD says:

Lawrence Lessig, a respected Law Professor from Stanford University told an audience at this years Fortunes Brainstorm Tech conference in Half Moon Bay, California, that Theres going to be an i-9/11 event which will act as a catalyst for a radical reworking of the law pertaining to the Internet.

Lessig also revealed that he had learned, during a dinner with former government Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke, that there is already in existence a cyber equivalent of the Patriot Act, an i-Patriot Act if you will, and that the Justice Department is waiting for a cyber terrorism event in order to implement its provisions.

Excerpt:

Lessig: "I had dinner once with Richard Clark at the table and I said 'is there an equivalent to the Patriot Act -- an iPatriot Act -- just sitting waiting for some substantial event just waiting for them to come have the excuse for radically changing the way the Internet works?' And he said, 'Of course there is' -- and I swear this is what he said, and quote -- 'and Vint Cerf is not going to like it very much.'"

Lessig starts talking about it around 4:30 into the video.

ORLY?

I wish I wasn't behind a corporate firewall so I could see the vid.

slashdot just picked up this story too. Is there anything to it? (God, I hope the good prof & Clark are just being whimsical or cynical.)

...but 9/11 was used to justify a bunch of garbage. I can't put the possiblity of an "i-9/11" into the "tin foil hat" category.

(gonna have 2 move to Iceland???)

http://www.infowars.net/articles/august2008/050808i911.htm

Law Professor: Counter Terrorism Czar Told Me There Is Going To Be An i-9/11 And An i-Patriot Act
Stanford Law professor Lawrence Lessig details government plans to overhaul and restrict the Internet


Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, August 5, 2008



StumbleUpon

Amazing revelations have emerged concerning already existing government plans to overhaul the way the internet functions in order to apply much greater restrictions and control over the web.

Lawrence Lessig, a respected Law Professor from Stanford University told an audience at this years Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech conference in Half Moon Bay, California, that "There’s going to be an i-9/11 event" which will act as a catalyst for a radical reworking of the law pertaining to the internet.

Lessig also revealed that he had learned, during a dinner with former government Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke, that there is already in existence a cyber equivalent of the Patriot Act, an "i-Patriot Act" if you will, and that the Justice Department is waiting for a cyber terrorism event in order to implement its provisions.

During a group panel segment titled "2018: Life on the Net", Lessig stated:

There’s going to be an i-9/11 event. Which doesn't necessarily mean an Al Qaeda attack, it means an event where the instability or the insecurity of the internet becomes manifest during a malicious event which then inspires the government into a response. You've got to remember that after 9/11 the government drew up the Patriot Act within 20 days and it was passed.

The Patriot Act is huge and I remember someone asking a Justice Department official how did they write such a large statute so quickly, and of course the answer was that it has been sitting in the drawers of the Justice Department for the last 20 years waiting for the event where they would pull it out.

Of course, the Patriot Act is filled with all sorts of insanity about changing the way civil rights are protected, or not protected in this instance. So I was having dinner with Richard Clarke and I asked him if there is an equivalent, is there an i-Patriot Act just sitting waiting for some substantial event as an excuse to radically change the way the internet works. He said "of course there is".

Watch Lessig reveal the details at 4.30 into the following video:

Lessig is the founder of Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society. He is founding board member of Creative Commons and is a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and of the Software Freedom Law Center. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications.

These are clearly not the ravings of some paranoid cyber geek.

The Patriot Act, as well as its lesser known follow up the Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003, also known as USA Patriot Act II, have been universally decried by civil libertarians and Constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum. They have stripped back basic rights and handed what have been described by even the most moderate critics as "dictatorial control" over to the president and the federal government.

Many believed that the legislation was a response to the attacks of 9/11, but the reality was that the Patriot Act was prepared way in advance of 9/11 and it sat dormant, awaiting an event to justify its implementation.

In the days after the attacks it was passed in the House by a majority of 357 to 66. It passed the Senate by 98 to 1. Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) told the Washington Times that no member of Congress was even allowed to read the legislation.

Now we discover that exactly the same freedom restricting legislation has already been prepared for the cyber world.

An i-9/11, as described by Lawrence Lessig, would provide the perfect pretext to implement such restrictions in one swift motion, as well as provide the justification for relegating and eliminating specific content and information on the web.

Such an event could come in the form of a major viral attack, the hacking of a major city's security or transport systems, or some other vital systems, or a combination of all of these things. Considering the amount of unanswered questions regarding 9/11 and all the indications that it was a covert false flag operation, it isn't hard to imagine such an event being played out in the cyber world.

However, regardless of any i-9/11 or i-Patriot Act, there is already a coordinated effort to stem the reach and influence of the internet.

We have tirelessly warned of this general movement to restrict, censor, control and eventually completely shut down the internet as we know it, thereby killing the last real vestige of free speech in the world today and eliminating the greatest communication and information tool ever conceived.

Our governments have reams of legislation penned to put clamps on the web as we know it. Legislation such as the PRO-IP Act of 2007: H.R. 4279, that would create an IP czar at the Department of Justice and the Intellectual Property Enforcement Act of 2007: S. 522, which would create an entire ‘Intellectual Property Enforcement Network’. These are just two examples.

In addition, we have already seen how the major corporate websites and social networks are decentralizing and coming together to implement overarching identification, verification and access systems that have been described by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg as "the beginning of a movement and the beginning of an industry.”

Some of these major tech companies have already joined efforts in projects such as the Information Card Foundation, which has proposed the creation of a system of internet ID cards that will be required for internet access. Of course, such a system would give those involved the ability to track and control user activity much more effectively. This is just one example.

In addition, as we reported yesterday, major transportation hubs like St. Pancras International, as well as libraries, big businesses, hospitals and other public outlets that offer wi-fi Internet, are blacklisting alternative news websites and making them completely inaccessible to their users.

These precedents are merely the first indication of what is planned for the Internet over the next 5-10 years, with the traditional web becoming little more than a vast spy database that catalogues people’s every activity and bombards them with commercials, while those who comply with centralized control and regulation of content will be free to enjoy the new super-fast Internet 2.

We must speak out about this rampant move to implement strict control mechanisms on the web NOW before it is too late, before the spine of the free internet is broken and its body essentially becomes paralyzed beyond repair.

http://justgetthere.us/blog/archives/Former-Counter-Terrorism-Adviser-says-i-Patriot-Act-Ready-For-Cyber-Terrorism-Event.html

"Since the Clinton administration, Clark has been vocal about the possibility of an "digital Pearl Harbor". After serving as the the top counterterrorism advisor on 9/11/01, he was demoted for focusing to much on cyber-terrorism at the expense of physical terrorism. Being treated like a cyber "Chicken Little", the media has labeled him a fearmonger for his statements and focus on a cyber threat on a huge scale.

I believe that Clark was on to something, but his timing was a little off. Now, there are several key mechanisms being finalized to create the solution for an internet attack. This could be a false-flag style manufactured event in order to put more government control on the internet. Once implemented, it will create the synthesis for complete control of the internet by government and corporations.

You would first need to establish a new internet backbone such as Internet2, which is on a newly created hub shielded from the attack. Next, you create an Internet ID card that will be required for internet access and gives you the ability to track users much easier. Finally you draft legislation such as PRO-IP Act of 2007: H.R. 4279, that would create an IP czar at the Department of Justice and the Intellectual Property Enforcement Act of 2007: S. 522, which would create an entire ‘Intellectual Property Enforcement Network’.

Combined, all of this seems like the skeleton structure for an "i-Patriot Act". Even if there isn't any pending "i-9/11", looking at what is happening behind the scenes, the planned destruction of what we know as the internet is already in the works."

The sad truth is, I already don't feel "free" on the net...thanks in great part to the RIAA. They've helped to make it abundantly clear that anonymity does not exist online and repercussions, warranted or not, can be thrust upon anyone who makes their presence known in cyberspace.

All of this has had an enormous chilling effect on me and my speech. I feel very passionate about a lot of things and would like to express my opinions, good or bad. However, I seldom post anything online and almost never on my own page or anything that can very easily be traced back to me. When I do post, I limit my statements and opinions to only the safest, most watered-down versions I can create.

I don't feel safe, knowing that anyone with an agenda...be it individuals, groups, corporations, or government...can easily identify and strike at me and my family based upon simple words that I have posted online.

The safest course of action seems to be to "make as few waves as possible while swimming." If I remain quiet and harmless, most likely no one will bother with me.

Call me paranoid, but I love what I have...my family and my (relative) freedom...and I don't want it taken away.

The Patriot Act worsened this paranoia. Suddenly I began to feel self-conscious about what books I check out from the library...never sure which ones might throw up a red flag and put me under suspicion for some imaginary threat. Will checking out a book on the McCarthy era look bad, or simply showing a general propensity for mystery/thriller novels.

Even with all of this hightened paranoia, this i-Patriot Act scares me even more. I barely feel safe online now as it is. I wouldn't be able to deal with knowing that, not only are my posts open for review, but also what sites I visit regularly. Will regular visits to Boycott RIAA bring about suspicion? What about alternative news sources? Will there even be any?

If they end up forcing everyone onto a highly regulated and monitored Internet 2, I will likely be tempted to just opt out of going online at all and save myself $50 a month.

The problem with that is, it's exactly what they want.

"Will regular visits to Boycott RIAA bring about suspicion?"

I have a sneaky feeling that my own name is on a terrorist watch-list because of my activities here. I haven't tried to fly anywhere in many years tho. (No money.)

but, byteme

we collectively gotta be BRAVE, or things are only gonna get worse. If we don't exercise our rights, they WILL be taken away.

First of all, why is our website taking 30 seconds to show a screen page? Oomph!

Re: "No member of Congress was even given a chance to read the legislation" of the Patriot Act before it was voted on and passed.
Just one of many examples that go to show the politicians either aren't initially on the side of the liberties of citizens to begin with, or they change (become corrupted) later.
Am I cynical? Yes, cynically realistic.

Re: "Considering the amount of unanswered questions regarding 9/11 and all the indications that it was a covert false flag operation . . ."

I've said it various times on this website that there is a high probability the government was complicit in regard to the 9/11 attacks. It was known the attacks were coming, and they did not put forth effort to prevent them. (The reasons behind this phenomenon require many details to describe.)

See, byteme, I'm laying it out on the line and letting the chips fall were they may. Freedom of speech must be cherished; and like Shmoo says, and it has to be exercised even if there's a risk in doing so. That's because there's a greater danger in NOT exercising it.
It's not just libertarians that need to feel that way; otherwise, America stands to lose even more freedoms.

"First of all, why is our website taking 30 seconds to show a screen page?"

I have no idea. That's a question for leflaw. I've also noticed very slow load times too this past week or two (but DMusic seemed to be working fine a few days ago when I last visited.) Maybe some bad code in an ad?

"the government was complicit"

I don't think that's true, (but we all know Bush and congress certainly DID take advantage of the "gift" Osama gave 'em to curtail some of our pesky freedoms.)

This warning from Lessig is likely and sadly a valid one.

Land of the Free
so long as we remain
Home of the Brave

Ok folks, (now that I am home from my out of town dayjob and on my own 'puter where I can look up stuff beyond "text only" sites like boycott-RIAA)

here's a vid link to Lawrence Lessig saying these things that sparked us (and Boingboing, Slashdot, etc.) to discuss...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq7qxECor_8

I understand they're saying the idea of a massive cyber-attack being a justification for massive curtailment of civil liberties is a possibility, and therefore making a comparison. But I have SERIOUS problems with the idea of referring to someone hacking the internet as an "i9/11" kind of event. Has it been that long that people have forgotten what it felt like to watch those things happen on the news, nearly 3 thousand people losing their lives and people jumping out of skyscraper windows in a futile attempt at escape?

I find the term and concept of "i9/11" to be completely, patently offensive. I'm really surprised to hear a man of Lessig's stature using such termenology.

Sorry... terminology... typo.

"But I have SERIOUS problems with the idea of referring to someone hacking the internet as an "i9/11" kind of event."

I understand your point, and I see where you're coming from. Lessig was looking at things with a perspective of how the 9/11 tragedies ultimately were capitalized upon by instigating significant loss of liberties, but perhaps he shouldn't have risked offense by saying "i9/11".

Even so, all this pales in comparison to how our government made pragmatic use of the death of innocent people in September 2001 to forge draconian laws and executive orders meant to increase governmental powers while abrogating the rights of its citizens!
And this was something they RELISHED doing in opportunistic fashion, in view of the circumstances of how they knew these attacks were coming but chose to not prevent them.
That horrible phenomenon -- of arranging to have those terrible laws now on the books, though the worst of them haven't been evoked YET-- could ultimately turn out to be a tragedy worse than all those folks being killed on 9/11. I say that with all due respect for the dead and those who grieve for them, because America losing basic freedoms incrementally means our country won't be worth living in. In which case, what Patrick Henry said over 200 years ago will once more ring true: "Give me liberty or give me death!" It would be preferable to go down fighting for our constitutional rights than to submit to tyranny. Sadly though, too few of our sheeple would be expected to feel that strong.

If you took down the power grid in Arizona one morning, people in Sun City would be dropping like flies by noon. Do it Minnesota in the winter and you get the same result. Roll open the floodgates at Hoover Dam. Nuclear plant malfunctions. Air traffic control systemwide failure.

The government runs on Windows.

A "massive cyber attack" could theoretically kill hundreds of thousands. If you're offended by the comparison to 9/11, I'd suggest that you have not considered the depth and breadth of what is possible, and the lengths to which the government will go to force control upon us.

As one reads the information contained within the following news article, it doesn't take a vivid imagination to consider the present internet as having a case of terminal illness. I wonder if powers-that-be have been dragging their feet for the past 17 years, counting on the day when an "i-9/11 event" occurs. That's the excuse they want to get genuine control of the freedom of the internet by replacing it. (If they had gone ahead and taken care of the DNS problem, they wouldn't have the excuse they'll be able to use.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/technology/09flaw.html?hp

Leaks in Patch for Web Security Hole of DNS

By JOHN MARKOFF

Published: August 8, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO — Faced with the discovery of a serious flaw in the Internet’s workings, computer network administrators around the world have been rushing to fix their systems with a cobbled-together patch. Now it appears that the patch has some gaping holes.


Jae C. Hong/Associated Press

[IMAGE The crowd at a speech given by Dan Kaminsky, a researcher at a security firm who has been vocal about an Internet vulnerability]

Jae C. Hong/Associated Press

Mr. Kaminsky, at a conference in Las Vegas, said the flaw could affect not just the Web but also other services like e-mail.

On Friday, a Russian physicist demonstrated that the emergency fix to the basic Internet address system, known as the Domain Name System, is vulnerable and will almost certainly be exploited by criminals.

The flaw could allow Internet traffic to be secretly redirected so thieves could, for example, hijack a bank’s Web address and collect customer passwords.

In a posting on his blog, the physicist, Evgeniy Polyakov, wrote that he had fooled the software that serves as the Internet’s telephone book into returning an incorrect address in just 10 hours, using two standard desktop computers and a high-speed network link. Internet experts who reviewed the posting said the approach appeared to be effective.

The basic vulnerability of the network has become a heated controversy since Dan Kaminsky, a Seattle-based researcher at the security firm IOActive, quietly notified a number of companies that distribute Internet addressing software earlier this year.

On Wednesday, Mr. Kaminsky described the vulnerability to a packed room at a technical conference in Las Vegas. He said that it could affect not just the Web but also other services like e-mail.

The general risk of such a flaw had been known for some years within the insular Internet technical community. But in the last month security engineers have repeatedly stated that it is only a matter of time before financial organizations and others are attacked by computer criminals seeking to exploit the now-public flaw. One expert says this is happening now.

“We have already been seeing attacks in the wild for the past two weeks,” said Bill Woodcock, research director of the Packet Clearing House, a nonprofit technical organization. Some of the initial attacks focused on distributing malicious software, he said, and more recently there has been evidence of so-called phishing attacks aimed at stealing personal information.

It is now almost certain that there will be an escalating number of attacks, Mr. Woodcock said. Before the patch, which has now been distributed to more than three-quarters of the affected servers in the world, it would have taken as little as one second to insert false information into the address database. Now, even with the patch, attacks will be possible in a matter of minutes or hours, he said.

Mr. Polyakov carried out his attack using two fast computers, but the same attack could be carried out more quickly. There is now an intense debate over how to find a more permanent fix for the system’s weaknesses.

“We’ve bought some time,” said Paul Mockapetris, the software engineer who devised the original D.N.S. system and is now chairman of Nominum, a firm that makes a version of the D.N.S. software that is not vulnerable to the current flaw. Mr. Mockapetris described the patch that is now being put in place as the equivalent of “playing Russian roulette with a gun that has 100 bullet chambers instead of six.”

“The point,” he said, “should be to take the gun out of people’s hands.”

The root of the problem lies in the fact that the address system, which was invented in 1983, was not meant for services like electronic banking that require strict verification of identity.

“They are relying on infrastructure that was not intended to do what people assume it does,” said Clifford Neuman, director of the Center for Computer Systems Security at the University of Southern California. “What makes this so frustrating is that no one has been listening to what we have been saying for the past 17 years.”

A number of Internet security engineers point out that if a solution is found for the deeper problem of identity and authentication on the Internet, it will go a long way toward stopping many of the identity-related crimes that are now commonplace.

Some experts are proposing an encryption-based solution known as DNSSEC. It would give Web users high confidence that the Internet address they are being sent to is correct.

So far several governments, including Sweden and Puerto Rico, have adopted DNSSEC, and the United States government is likely to deploy the system for its .gov domain this year.

“DNSSEC is not an overnight solution for the Kaminsky problem, but it’s the right solution in the long run,” said Richard Lamb, a technical expert at the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the nonprofit organization that oversees Internet security and stability.

Others remain skeptical that the more secure approach is practical for the wider commercial Internet, because it requires more computing power and because it would be hard to get the whole world to adopt it.

One technical expert, Daniel J. Bernstein, a University of Illinois mathematician who has also developed a version of D.N.S. that does not suffer from the current flaw, said DNSSEC “offers a surprisingly low level of security, while at the same time introducing performance and reliability problems.”

More Articles in Technology » A version of this article appeared in print on August 9, 2008, on page C1 of the New York edition.

"One technical expert, Daniel J. Bernstein, a University of Illinois mathematician who has also developed a version of D.N.S. that does not suffer from the current flaw, said DNSSEC offers a surprisingly low level of security, while at the same time introducing performance and reliability problems.”


How much you want to bet that Bernstein's common-sense solution won't be heeded?

I'd bet my bank account (p.s., it ain't huge).

That DNS fix? Not so much, actually:

http://www.product-reviews.net/2008/08/09/web-security-dns-patch-not-so-secure/

"Many web security expects see something called DNSSEC as the answer to the problem still remaining even with the DNS fix that's shown to be inadequate."

But that is NOT "the answer to the problem".
"DNSSEC offers a surprisingly low level of security, while at the same time introducing performance and reliability problems.” — Daniel Bernstein

Daniel Bernstein, a brilliant mathematician, DOES have "the answer". He developed a DNS version that doesn't suffer from the current flaw.

It won't become adopted, though, because it's a genuine solution, not just another flawed fix.
The powers-that-be who don't want the current internet to survive in the present condition of freedom that it has, will get their crisis that they want in order to justify a radical change.

Heartbreaking:

Hush Money

"John Edwards' political action committee paid his mistress, Rielle Hunter, $114,000--ostensibly to produce four short web videos for the campaign, ABC News reports. Given that Edwards has now finally admitted he had an affair with Hunter (and, according to the National Enquirer, which first broke the affair story, fathered a "love child"), it's possible that this is the first instance of hush money essentially being laundered through YouTube.

Also notable: Rielle Hunter may be the best-paid web video producer in the business."

Likewise heartbreaking must have been how McCain's first wife felt after she had waited faithfully for his return from 'Nam, only to have him divorce her afterward because he found someone more interesting that he had a fling with in Hawaii.

The NY Times is reporting today that Georgia (the country) had suffered an extensive "cyber attack" for at least a week preceding Russia's invasion.

Pessimist said: "The powers-that-be who don't want the current internet to survive in the present condition of freedom that it has, will get their crisis that they want in order to justify a radical change."

Even if they have to create the crisis themselves.

Re: "Even if they have to create the crisis themselves."

Yes! (Thanks, George.)