Who's to Blame?

Friday, February 11, 2000

The "Cruds" we will always have with us until we as a race decide that "cruddy behavior" will no longer be tolerated. The recent attacks on the Internet, by whatever fraudulent means, was not meant to send anybody a message worth listening to as such, but which will tilt the balances toward a repressive reaction.

We're about examine the minds and motives of "cruds" and to pause and reflect on so much that is at stake if we decide to rid ourselves of cruddy behavior and to do so in others. In order to do so, we need to know what crud is. It is amply demonstrated in three articles that appeared on the web concerning the recent "attacks" on the Internet.

I

David Noack, reporting from Pittsburgh, suggests that an "anarchist group" is attempting to "show the government that the internet can't be controlled." Then he goes on to cite other sources with more ambiguous claims about who may be responsible. Nevertheless he says that his source at Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh had been contracted by someone, "angry about the growing use of the Internet by business," turning it into "the whorehouse of e-commerce."

Later, a group calling itself the Sovereign Anarchist Internet Militia (SAIM) actually claimed responsibility for the attacks, calling the Web shutdowns a "warning shot," saying further that, "Our government, in light of recent events, is moving forward to crack down on 'hackers and hacker activity,' I can only say that government's attempt to control the Internet is not only futile, but moot (sic). It is impossible for any government or corporation to control it, due to its design. If the federal government, or any branch of government for that matter, or any corporate board continues to threaten more control of the Internet, I can guarantee that more attacks will occur (not only ones similar to this week, but more severe attacks) by the many underground organizations that share our same cause and beliefs." Sound like cheap radical rhetoric so far?

The article goes on to say that such individuals, identified as hackers, whether they are part of a larger group or not, break into commercial databases to steal credit card numbers, etc.

"Whorehouse of e-commerce" indeed! These hackers, whether spouting some idealistic cant against business or offering some threat to government authority are merely common criminals, aiming to steal what does not belong to them and otherwise cause a public nuisance. They have no cause except to enrich themselves and cause havoc in the process. The "arms" in this "wild west" style banditry are powerful and insidious software programs.

What these hackers will force on the internet is a police force reaction to their activities, devised as software and detection methods that will track a hacker or hackers down until real physical police can come and haul them away from their computers and away to jail or worse.

Obviously if some group loudly claims responsibility, such groups and the individuals who make them up have openly declared their guilt. Therefore police action, often brutal, can be expected when these cruddy loudmouths are finally caught. The rest of us will cheer!

The Internet has become a venue like any other, albeit electronic. Real business transactions are concluded on it every day. Transactions that require a certain degree of trust. That trust is violated any time security is breached whether it be on the Internet or on the street. If one robbed someone on a street it would be considered a crime.

Just so on the internet. Frankly the sanctions against malicious hacking to deliberately bring down a system, steal the use of other's financial assets or otherwise interfere with e-commerce, must be severe. I might suggest that some sort of financial brand attach to such a person denying them credit conceivably for the rest of their miserable lives if it weren't that it would only challenge them to pursue even more brutal forms of criminal conduct. A hacker is basically a misanthrope. In most good Islamic countries, cutting off of the hands would be sufficient punishment.

The anger many of us are beginning to feel will soon boil over into political action and then the days of relative freedom on the Internet will be over for us all. Some of us do not regard these attacks as mere pranks and they will inevitably bring about what some of the hackers themselves may not even want. They have dared to challenge the United States government and that entity will not stop in its pursuit if once it gets alarmed. Is this what they really wanted to happen? Did the government put some of them up to it?

An internet invaded by counter programs constantly seeking out hackers to destroy would soon bring about the age of George Orwell's "Big Brother". Is this what the hackers want? This is what they are bringing about. Do they have some Luddite agenda? I doubt it. They're just bandits and their activities will inevitably call out the Marshalls.

And, oh by the way, although they may think themselves smart that they can break into and destroy systems with software many of them didn't even write, the way they express themselves betrays their stupidity. There is nothing "moot" about the government's control of the Internet. The only thing "moot" will be the screaming and hollering of numerous hackers who society has decided to commit to the most insidiously cruel of its prisons to rot for years upon years while the rest of the world insolently goes its own way. And there aren't that many out here that share their "same cause and beliefs" either, unless they be other criminals.

Who's to Blame for Web Site Shutdowns? 'Internet Militia' Takes Credit - Feb. 10, 2000 By David Noack

II.

NSC to lead Internet security meeting -- WSJ

III.

The Australians have had their own hacker problems. The police there are already mobilized. The international e-squads that will be dispatched by the acts of hackers will change the way the Internet feels for everyone since sooner or later everyone will be be watched. But business has already begun to develop such a need for the instantaneous worldwide grip of the Internet that anyone kept out will not be economically viable. Are the hackers by their actions forcing the Internet user into acquiring The Mark of the Beast? Why does it always have to be the few "cruds" in the world who wreck it for everyone else? When will we lose our naiveté and openly express the vengeance these people inspire?

Sydney Web site falls prey to US-style hacker attack

The Polar Bear