Musings & Rambles

A bill has finally been presented in Ottawa that will provide for a tougher crack-down on cyber bullies, specifically related to the distribution of intimate images without the victim’s consent. This comes just over a year after the death of local teen, Amanda Todd, who commit suicide after pictures of her were distributed online. The legislation, titled the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, proposes to make the sharing and distribution of intimate images illegal, chargeable with up to 5 years in jail. The bill will also allow judges to charge convicts with the costs of removing these images from the internet, and give them the ability to sign warrants that will allow police to seize electronic devices for investigation. While the bill still needs to be passed, it marks a huge step in the crack-down on cyber bullying.

However, not all agree with the proposed bill. Many argue that the bill, depicted as a way to help teens like Amanda Todd, is simply an attack on Canadian’s civil liberties by including in the bill all “theft of telecommunications”, including stealing cable & Wi-Fi. These individuals also argue that the legislation is too broad, and does not provide a clear enough definition of when it is or isn’t a crime – pointing to examples such as images from parties, posted to social media with no malicious intent. In other words, many believe the bill is being proposed as one thing, but in reality is another.

In my opinion, I think any step towards better handling of cyber bullying is a step in the right direction. The other things included in the bill? Well, they were already illegal (such as stealing cable, or hacking into someone’s computer), now they will just be easier to catch, and I think that’s what has people so worked up. We have come to expect that we can get away with these things – we see them as our rights, when they never truly have been. BUT, back on track! Cyber bullying. It’s a horrible thing that hurts so many individuals (not just teens), and is so much harder to catch than traditional bullying; so, I believe Bill C-13 is a fantastic step in the right direction. It’s a step that allows for authorities to expose those who have hidden behind the veil of a computer, and provide punishments that will (in some small way) help those who have been hurt by the actions of the individual.

Sources

1. http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Simons+cyber+bullying+bill+threaten+civil+liberties/9192160/story.html
2. http://london.ctvnews.ca/legislation-will-crack-down-on-cyber-crime-1.1552632
3. http://www.news1130.com/2013/11/20/mother-of-amanda-todd-welcomes-anti-cyber-bullying-bill/

While cyber protection is unquestionably provided for a state’s government, law enforcement agencies, and other important corporations, NGOs appear to have been largely left out of the equation. I would argue that these organizations are in dire need of online protection, not simply for the protection of the organizations themselves, but for the protection of those whom the organization works with and on behalf of. For example, a skilled attacker could easily obtain the information of an NGOs donors, volunteers, and clients, as well as information on their operations which could lead to potential physical harm to individuals. One need only think of human rights and humanitarian organizations, often operating in war-torn countries, to imagine which types of threats the release of said information could lead to.

Cyber attacks can also be used against NGOs to prevent sensitive information from being released that implicate a state/government/group/etc. in some atrocity. For example, in 2010, various NGOs in West Papua were victims of DDoS attacks on their websites after posting a video of Indonesian soldiers torturing West Papuans. It was suspected that the Indonesian authorities were the perpetrators of the attack, which left several websites inactive for some time. This is a prime example of an entity (ex. – Indonesian authorities) dishing out the funds and technology in order to act against another entity (ex. – NGO) who has little ability to prevent the action. In the case of NGOs, it is often the “bad guy” who has the ability to stamp out the “good guy”, and I think it should be the other way around. Ideally, it would be fantastic to have an organization that specialized in the cyber protection of NGOs websites and online information, providing them with the same or a higher level of cyber technology as those who might aim to suppress them. Of course, realistically implementing such an initiative, providing an expensive service to mostly non-profit, donations-based organizations, would be a feat that most would laugh at.

Perhaps someone should pitch the idea to Bill Gates.

Sources

1. http://westpapuamedia.info/2010/11/05/indonesian-authorities-suspected-of-launching-cyber-attacks-on-ngo-websites/
2. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/oct/28/survival-international-website-torture-video

I think Ava makes a great point in this blog post. As much as we like to imagine the Internet brings folks together, it also acts like a wedge in our online society. Where matters were previously debated in person, typically in one session of words thrown back and forth until an agreement or a stalemate was decided upon, debates online prove to be a lot more complicated. People post comments directed at an individual’s opinion, usually in disagreement, but then often leave their keyboard, with some feeling of satisfaction at having “beaten down” the other. The initial individual may respond again, at an attempt to carry on debate, but the chance of a further response is just that, chance. There’s a disconnect from the foundations of debate. The Internet allows people to puff out their chest, state their opinion loudly, and then walk in and out of the room at will – participating in debate only when it suits them – as opposed to sitting down and carrying on a conversation with courtesy and a healthy back-and-forth. Rather than using evidence and logic, the Internet is rife with nonsensical statements & opinions from those who have not educated themselves, but feel secure in shouting out an opinion because they are behind a computer screen. If people acted like they do online, in real life, it would seem absolutely ridiculous:

Ranting aside, I think the Internet can be a great platform for people to debate and discuss their opinions where they might be too shy to, otherwise. However, it also provides this sense of “anonymity” that results in people getting a little out of hand when stating their opinions and disagreements. The idea of a “debate” becomes a little lost, and discussions end up looking more like a shouting match between individuals who won’t even attempt to find a middle ground. In the end, the ideological divide simply gets larger.

The days of braving the mobs of deal-crazed shoppers on Black Friday or Boxing Day may soon be over. BBC reported that Chinese citizens spent today online shopping, consuming more than on any other day of the year, on what’s become known as Cyber Monday. Chinese companies slashed their online prices by 50% or more, but raked in $5.7 billion in total sales. In order to accommodate the millions of shoppers, 20,000 computer servers were required to handle online traffic.

To me, this sounds like trying to fit millions of people into a shopping mall. The demand is greater than the capacity; except, we’re talking about the internet. And it’s troublesome in two ways. One, we are barely able to handle the online surges that days like Cyber Monday induce, our servers simply aren’t powerful enough (yet). And two, our ability to (despite the technological barriers) amass so many people onto a website that then has to ship products through traditional means causes some dilemmas. Is it realistic to expect FedEx to ship 22 million packages in a single day? I think this is a prime example of both the restrictions of our current technology, as well as the issues that even such “limited” technology can produce for non-technological things. Though, I don’t think anyone would argue that the internet doesn’t benefit the economy! E-sales on Cyber Monday way out-do e-sales on Black Friday – a much older and well-known shopping-day.

Sources:

1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24894562

2. http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/23/pf/fedex-cyber-monday/index.html?iid=EL

3. http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/10/news/economy/china-cyber-monday/

4. http://business.time.com/2012/11/26/black-friday-results-are-in-centerpiece-of-a-huge-multi-day-bricks-and-clicks-shopping-spree/

Recently Canada was accused of spying on Brazil’s mining and energy activities, but should we be surprised?

Countries spy on, and are accused of spying on each other all the time, it’s part of the modern age and how states are able to stay afloat. But, is this something that should cause alarm? I say, no. Why? Because spies and political espionage go back farther than almost anything else in our political system, and cyber spies are only the latest model. It’s not a new phenomenon.

Now, does this mean we should embrace cyber espionage? No. It is handled with the same severity as traditional espionage was 50, 100, or 1000 years ago – as it should be. Sovereign states have a right to their privacy and a right to be miffed when it’s infringed upon. So, they call out the suspected state and go through the well-rehearsed game of politics, and life moves on.

And it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what compelled Canada to spy in the first place: oil, money, energy in a world that’s rapidly running dry. If, through cyber espionage, Canada could gain valuable information on Brazil, it would provide them with an upper hand in getting in on some of the action. Especially when Brazil was auctioning off the rights to help properly exploit a huge resource.

On the other hand, access to Brazil’s computers could also give Canada the information required to make the decision not to participate in auctions – as it appears was the case (for reasons unknown). Perhaps this is what tipped off the Brazilians to the espionage. With an oil discovery so big, Brazil had expected at least 40 companies worldwide to auction for a shot at the contract; but only 11 signed up, with not a single company from the U.S., U.K., Canada, New Zealand or Australia. In other words, Canada and the countries that regularly meet with Canada to discuss security & energy threats did not bid – a decision they would not have made without good reason (aka. private information obtained through espionage).

It is my opinion, however, that this “cyber” espionage could and would have occurred if the Internet did not exist. One need only look to a Dictionary for evidence of this. First known use of the term spy: 1200’s. First origins of the Internet: 1960s.

____________________________________

Sources:

1. http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/ID/2411192763/

2. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/why-would-canada-spy-on-brazil-mining-and-energy-officials-1.1931465

3. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spy

4. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/internet