From: iw@all.net
Subject: IW Mailing List iw/960322
---------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 96 16:08:02 PST
From: "Peter G. Neumann" 
Subject: Re: IW Mailing List iw/960321

Right on, fabricio!
---------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 19:30:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Sick Puppy 
Subject: Re: IW Mailing List iw/960321

> of expression.  How many of us would really desire to live in anarchy?

Not many in the western industrialized countries.  However there are 
tens of millions of people with very little access to the Internet who 
are forced to live in anarchy, even though they theoretically have a 
government. (Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, southern regions of Zaire, for 
example).  People adapt to the system in which they are forced to live.
If we are forced to live with anarchy on the Internet, we will do so.

> ...  It is a fabric where groups attack individuals and
> the individual is barred from returning fire.  It is a fabric in which
> law enforcement knows little and can do even less.  ... 
> ... It is target-rich, and essentially defense free.  The best 
> defenders can do is hold on until the attackers give up.  Defenders are 
> under seige, possessing of weapons and skills, but barred from breaking 
> the seige.  ...

All of that is true and could be effectively addressed by the development 
of "Personal Firewalls" the same way that personal computers were 
developed and contributed to the demise of large mini-computers and 
mainframes.

As far as I know, there are no vendors presently developing "Personal 
Firewalls" but as the popularity of cable modems that give Internet access 
through cable television systems increases, such a market will develop.
Many of the cable television systems have "head ends" that consist of 
aging VAX computers where security has never been a priority.  

Even if the existing firewall vendors do not develop "Personal Firewalls" 
then somone else will.  A cheap South East Asian knock-off of a TIS Gauntlet 
or Firewall-1 is a real possibility from my point of view.
---------------------------------------------
Date: 22 Mar 96 06:02:00 -0800
From: STIBBARDS_JAMES@Tandem.COM
Subject: IW Mailing List iw/960321

I suggest Candidate Cohen get back to the issues of IW, and stop waxing so
political.  I'm sure there are security openings at the UN if he's interested
in re-architecting society... ;)

[Moderator's Note: Perhaps in the war criminal records area?]
---------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 09:07:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Craig Rowland 
Subject: Re: IW Mailing List iw/960321

>From: fc@all.net (Fred Cohen)
> 
> It is my belief that we are now weaving the fabric of the information
> society, and that whatever we weave today, we will have to wear
> tomorrow.

The fabric itself has always existed in the computer culture since the 
beginning. I think relatively little has changed over the past 30 years 
other than the computer culture hitting mainstream thought.  

>...  Indeed, the Internet of today is almost pure anarchy.
>...  How many of us would really desire to live in anarchy?

Anarchy unfortunately brings up a connotation of a Mad Max world, where
everything goes and there are few social controls to check behavior. 
For the Internet however, the word anarchy does in fact apply, but not
in the apocalyptic sense you are asserting.  In many ways the lack of
government is a natural outgrowth of the Internet, and not a prerequsite
for its existence.  Simply put, legacy forms of government are simply
too inefficient and often not practical to apply to the Internet
society.  The Internet really does not need formal rules to operate, it
polices itself much better than virtually all democratic societies in
existence today.  This is true in spite of the relatively few trouble
makers abusing the system (I'll take anyone to task over this
statement). 

> The fabric we weave today is global, but the laws we must follow and our
> ability to act in this venue are local.  It is an anarchy in which
> people from The Netherlands may attack my system, but I am legally
> barred from fighting back.  It is an anarchy in which the US DoD may

A perspective check is in order here.  Realistically I hold no code that
prevents me from targeting an individual with a calculated response if
that person chooses to cause problems on the Internet to me.  The threat
of legal repercussions are virtually non-existent even where laws exist. 
Even a concerted effort on the part of law enforcment to uphold such
laws would fail dismally because evidence is hard to obtain and the
judicial system is not prepared to deal with the often technical issues
involved.

[Moderator's Note: Some people follow the law even if they don't think
they can be caught.  Are you advocating breaking the lesser law under
the claim of self defense?]

Justified retaliation directly to attackers that results in breaking
conventional laws I would consider appropriate because no realistic
formal means exist to seek retribution.  Often though, it is best to
leave the situation alone and it will resolve itself. 

[Moderator's Note: You then support vigelante action? Open IW? Is this
reminiscent of the middle ages? Systems adminis have their fiefedoms -
individuals that cruise the Web are like free-men - we have pirates, and
yankee traders, etc.?]

> detect attacks from known enemies, but without a presidential finding,
> may not return fire.  It is a fabric where groups attack individuals and
> the individual is barred from returning fire.  It is a fabric in which

Again, "returning fire" is a personal choice.

[Moderator's Note: The US military doesn't have this personal choice.
Their non-response is mandated by law and the punishment if they break
this law can be quite brutal.]
...

Again, the Internet society has performed well for many decades and only
recently has undergone this scrutiny from conventional wisdom pundits
who have only recenlty learned to type. 

Not having a central government enhances the Internet because people can
do what they want, and likewise threatens the Internet because people
can do what they want.  I submit that the number of persons actually
abusing the resource is very small compared to the number of legitimate
users.  I personally would not want to give up the very flexible form of
rule the Internet has now because of a few nimrods. 

The social fabric of the Internet has been weaved by free thought and
unconventional ideas.  Largely, the Internet is based on mutual trust
and cooperation between people, not just computers, two concepts that
most all formal governments on this planet have yet to grasp.  How can
you improve on this concept?
---------------------------------------------
From: david@arch.ping.dk (David Stodolsky)
Subject: Re: The Fabric of the Internet
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 96 12:25:50 +0100

In Regards to your letter <9603212359.AA08791@all.net>:
> Many people assert the Internet is an electronic democracy, but nothing
> could be further from the truth.  Indeed, the Internet of today is
> almost pure anarchy.  We have nearly unlimited individual freedom in the

Clear thinking may require finer distinctions. Democracy and anarchy
are not necessarily opposites. A democratic system can be more or less 
anarchistic. In Denmark, there is a lot of "local" democracy, which
can be hard to distinguish from "anarchy." Also, the degree of regulation
(by law) is remarkably low compared to the USA, for example, as is
the amount of resources committed to the legal system. This includes
lawyers, police, jails, etc. Many potential conflicts are resolved
through voluntary organizations, mediation, etc.

A distinction between potential and current realization might also
be appropriate. The Internet offers the opportunity for democracy
on a scale that has been impossible up until now. By democracy, I
don't mean representative government, but direct democracy. The challenge
is to realize this potential.

> The fabric we weave today is global, but the laws we must follow and our
> ability to act in this venue are local.  It is an anarchy in which
> people from The Netherlands may attack my system, but I am legally
> barred from fighting back.  It is an anarchy in which the US DoD may

This doesn't sound like anarchy (Absence of any form of political authority)
in one sense, but maybe in another (Political disorder and confusion).
The real question is whether cyberspace can be self-regulating/governing.


> and skills, but barred from breaking the seige.  It is a fabric in which
> vigilante actions are the only option for breaking a seige, and we must
> know that the fabric of society breaks down when vigilante defense is
> the only one available.

Law "collectives," which are voluntary organizations, offer a way for
users to band together for defense. Many societies depend upon these
for dispute resolution.

> The fabric of the infosphere is falling apart, and we need to change it
> or see it collapse under its own weight.  From anarchy to representative
> government? Perhaps.  Or we could change the rules of engagement so that

There is no reason to expect responsible behavior in a system where
there is no accountability. A system based upon secure identities,
even untraceable to "real names", might be an adequate foundation for
cyberspacial governance. This paper available:

Stodolsky, D. S. (1994). Computer-network based democracy: Scientific 
communication as a basis for governance. In K. Bjerg & K. Borreby 
(Eds.), Home-oriented informatics, telematics & automation (pp. 51-58). 
Copenhagen: Oikos. (http://ocean.fit.qut.edu.au:8001/Direct-democracy-
paper.html)
---------------------------------------------