Letter on “Egypt’s Autocrats Exploited Internet’s Weaknesses”
Letter on “Egypt’s Autocrats Exploited Internet’s Weaknesses“
Regarding “Egypt Leaders Found ‘Off’ Switch for Internet“:
Dear James and John,
Interesting article. However, the following paragraph and much of what follows is incomplete or inaccurate.
Because the Internet’s legendary robustness and ability to route around blockages are part of its basic design, even the world’s most renowned network and telecommunications engineers have been perplexed that the Mubarak government succeeded in pulling the maneuver off.
The fundamental “building block” of the Internet is the Autonomous System (AS). Each AS is uniquely identified by an Autonomous System Number (ASN). In short, the internet is comprised of independent networks which voluntarily connect to each other by following the internet standards documents, known as RFC’s (“Request for Comments”).
How do systems know how to route traffic to other systems?
Today this is accomplished via BGP (Border Gateway Protocol).
Generally speaking, each AS broadcast routes via BGP over port 179.
What happened in Egypt is that, on January 28, most Egyptian AS stopped broadcasting routes via BGP, and thus became suddenly unreachable by almost all other internet AS. This was not a mystery to experts or even run-of-the-mill system engineers. It was immediately understood and documented.
How is it you did not talk to a single person with a clue as to what they were talking about? Or, did they know and simply not want to tell you so other governments would not exploit the same technique? In any event, had you googled “Egypt BGP” the answer would have become blindingly obvious to you instead of a “mystery.” The BGPmon post was referenced by at least 105 other blogs in the days following Jan 28, so the information was, and is, widely known and available.
See http://bgpmon.net/blog/?p=450
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_system_%28Internet%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Gateway_Protocolbest regards,
Henry
Note: Article was being revised, and retitled, by nytimes as I wrote this letter.
Copyright © 2011 Henry Edward Hardy
Here’s to the State of Arizona
Here’s to the State of Arizona (with thanks to Phil Ochs):
May be sung to the tune of “Here’s to the State of Mississippi” aka “Here’s to the State of Richard Nixon”:
Here’s to the state of Arizona,
For Underneath her borders, the devil draws no lines,
If you drag her dusty desert, nameless bodies you will find.
Whoa the fat trees of the forest have hid a thousand crimes,
The calender is lyin’ when it reads the present time.
Whoa here’s to the land you’ve torn out the heart of,
Arizona find yourself another country to be part of!
Here’s to the people of Arizona
Who say the folks up north, they just don’t know respect
And they tremble in their shadows at the thunder of Glen Beck
The sweating of their souls can’t wash the blood from off their hands
They smile and shrug their shoulders at the shooting of a Congressman
Oh, here’s to the land you’ve torn out the heart of
Arizona find yourself another country to be part of
Here’s to the schools of Arizona
Where they’re teaching all the children that they don’t have to care
All of rudiments of hatred are present everywhere
And every single classroom is a factory of despair
There’s nobody learning such a socialist word as “fair”
Oh, here’s to the land you’ve torn out the heart of
Arizona find yourself another country to be part of
Here’s to the cops of Arizona
They’re chewing their tobacco as they lock the prison door
Their bellies bounce inside them as they knock you to the floor
No they don’t like taking prisoners in their private little war
Behind their broken badges there are murderers and more
Oh, here’s to the land you’ve torn out the heart of
Arizona find yourself another country to be part of
And, here’s to the judges of Arizona
Who wear the robe of honor as they crawl into the court
They’re guarding all the bastions with their phony legal fort
Oh, justice is a stranger when the prisoners report
When a Mexican stands accused the trial is always short
Oh, here’s to the land you’ve torn out the heart of
Arizona find yourself another country to be part of
And here’s to the government of Arizona
In the swamp of their bureaucracy they’re always bogging down
And criminals are posing as the mayors of the towns
They’re hoping that no one sees the sights and hears the sounds
And the speeches of the governor are the ravings of a clown
Oh, here’s to the land you’ve torn out the heart of
Arizona find yourself another country to be part of
And here’s to the laws of Arizona
Congressmen will gather in a circus of delay
While the Constitution is drowning in an ocean of decay
Immigrant mothers should be sterilized, I’ve even heard them say
Yes, corruption can be classic in the Arizona way
Oh, here’s to the land you’ve torn out the heart of
Arizona find yourself another country to be part of
And here’s to the churches of Arizona
Where the cross, once made of silver, now is caked with rust
And the Sunday morning sermons pander to their lust
The fallen face of Jesus is choking in the dust
Heaven only knows in which God they can trust
Oh, here’s to the land you’ve torn out the heart of
Arizona find yourself another country to be part of
Copyright © 2011 Henry Edward Hardy
Response to “Why Wikileaks is Wrong”
Here is my response to “Why Wikileaks is Wrong” by Amy Bruckman:
Amy, your argument falls by the categorical imperative: if your argument was correct, then any government openness would be bad and all government information should be classified. You are opposing and undermining the very essence of democracy.
“The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness.”
–Nils Bohr
quoted in Kantrowitz, “The Weapon of Openness,” in Crandall and Lewis, “Nanotechnology, Research and Perspectives,” 1992
Wikileaks has received the 2008 Economist Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award and the 2009 Amnesty International Human Rights Reporting Award (New Media).
Please reconsider your analysis in this light. Let’s talk about this.
You quote a five step test for when to whistleblow. Here are my responses regarding the war in Afghanistan and whether or not whistleblowing is justified in this context.
1 Do you believe the problem may result in ‘serious and considerable harm to the public’?
The war in Afghanistan has resulted in 1338 confirmed deaths of US personnel and tens of thousands of Afghan deaths, mostly civilians. The US has conducted and condoned assassinations, secret disappearances and kidnappings, torture and rape, all contrary to US and international law.
2 Have you told your manager your concerns about the potential harm?
In November, 2001 I attempted to bring a written resolution before the Washtenaw County Democratic Party opposing the War in Afghanistan. It was ruled out of order by the chair without being submitted to discussion or a vote.
I went to the Rules Committee to ask for a rule permitting debate on my resolution. I was told, “Henry you can stay but if you open your mouth, if you say one word, you will be arrested and removed by force if necessary.”
3 Have you tried every possible channel within the organization to resolve the problem?
Since 2001, I have attended public meetings, written extensively in my blog, written repeatedly to my congresspeople and spoken to several of them in person. I have stood on a street corner by the Ann Arbor Federal Building holding a sign on many cold winter days, often alone.
4 Have you documented evidence that would persuade a neutral outsider that your view is correct?
There is ample evidence that the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable, that it serves no strategic purpose, that it is an illegal war of aggression under US and “customary” international law (in particular, the Nuremberg Principles). And bin Laden is not there, he is in Pakistan, protected by our “ally”.
5 Are you reasonably sure that if you do bring this matter to public attention, something can be done to prevent the anticipated harm?”
I am not sure that what Wikileaks has done will prevent the anticipated harm. But I think it will help. I am sure that if nothing is done, the harms will continue and intensify.
Having said that, I myself would not access or release data in this manner, because I think it would be professionally unethical from the perspective of the System Administrator’s Code of Ethics.
Henry Edward Hardy
Cambridge, MA
https://scanlyze.wordpress.com/category/afghanistan/
Wikileaks
Why Wikileaks is Wrong
Copyright © 2010 Henry Edward Hardy
US using illegal mercenary forces in Pakistan?
US using illegal mercenary forces in Pakistan?
The use of mercenaries or mercenary-like private armed forces by the US is forbidden by Anti-Pinkerton Act of 1893 (5 U.S.C. § 3108). See Weinberger v. Equifax, 557 F.2d 456, 462 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035 (1978). The use of mercenaries is forbidden under international law by the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries.
However, the New York Times reports today that the US is making use of mercenary forces in Pakistan, including a group allegedly under the control of Duane “Dewey” Claridge, notorious for his alleged role in the Iran-Contra scandal: “One of the companies employs a network of Americans, Afghans and Pakistanis run by Duane Clarridge, a C.I.A. veteran who became famous for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal. Mr. Clarridge declined to be interviewed. ”
See:
International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries
U.S. Is Still Using Private Spy Ring, Despite Doubts
Copyright © 2010 Henry Edward Hardy
Civilian Control of the Military?
This was written in response to a thread on the facebook group, The Constitution of the United States of America, titled, Do you think a President should have to serve in the military because he is Commander in Chief?
To ask, “Do you think a President should have to serve in the military because he is Commander in Chief?” is completely the wrong way of posing this question. The proper way of framing it is, “Do you think that the Commander-in-Chief should always be a civilian, elected President, in order to secure a democratic republic from military control?”
As James Madison said: “In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive, will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” [1]
This principle of civilian control has been and remains the fundamental precept upon which the command and control of the US Armed Forces depends and from which it draws its legitimacy:
“From the birth of democracy in ancient Greece, the idea of the citizen-soldier has been the single most important factor to shape the Western way of war. In a democracy, combatants bear arms as equals, fighting to defend their ideals and way of life. They are citizens with a stake in the society they have vowed to defend. They do not fight as mercenaries, nor are they guided by coercion or allegiance to the whims of a dictatorial leader. Rather, their motivation stems from a selfless commitment to an idea that far exceeds the interests of any individual member of the society. For the armed forces officer of the United States, this ethos began with the militiamen who defended their homes, secured the frontier, and won a war of independence against the most formidable military power of that era. The American military tradition has since been governed by a strict adherence to the primacy of civilian control and, within that framework, has continued to champion the role of the citizen-soldier as the defender of the nation’s ideals.” [2]
[1] Max Farrand. 1911. Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1:465. Civilian control of the military
Copyright © 2010 Henry Edward Hardy
About Scanlyze
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Scanlyze is an online magazine of essays, commentary, satire, and analysis. Were we half as clever, for inspiration we would take Mark Twain, Ambrose Bierce, Swift, Montaigne, or Seneca.
“The men who create power make an indispensable contribution to the Nation’s greatness, but the men who question power make a contribution just as indispensable, especially when that questioning is disinterested, for they determine whether we use power or power uses us.”
John F. Kennedy, October 26, 1963
Show your support for Scanlyze!
Click the “Make A Donation” link below to make a donation through PayPal using either your PayPal account or any major credit card.
This site is semi-archival. I actively post on @hhardy01@mastodon.social.
Paypal or credit card donation
Copyright © 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 Henry Edward Hardy.
Recent Comments
Scanlyze 