Looking back at some of the talk in the halls of the US Congress for about the last year, particularly about clarifying (or solidifying) Executive branch (they’re saying the President) authority to shut down some Internet capabilities in the case of an emergency[1. a) limiting access in time of {cyber} war, b) former CIA Director Michael Hayden in LA Times, c) President Bill Clinton’s plan, d) the flap over a possible (but not really proposed) Internet Kill Switch], such as a cyber-attack, makes me think that humans are fond of just shutting their eyes when faced with danger. [Read more…]

On March 10 (2009) Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying “something will happen soon” with respect to their presence in China. China today warned that Google must operate within their laws.

—the U.S. Internet company “will have to bear the consequences” if it follows through on its pledge to stop censoring its Chinese search site. [WSJ article]

Why is it that we in the “West” hear this statement so differently from the Chinese?

—You are free to say anything you want (in China) as long as it’s legal. [Sky paraphrases what they’ve said]

To give you a benchmark, in China it is illegal to have a photo of the Dalai Lama because he is called a subversive (splittist). In Costa Rica it has been illegal to propose changing the constitution. In the US (and many other countries) it is legal to propose changing the constitution, but illegal to attempt to change it by force or violence. In other words, in some countries it’s illegal to even talk about certain kinds of change…and therefore real and full free speech is impossible. There’s always a limit—it’s just quite variable and we have to work to make or keep it reasonable.

Throw away the image of an “army of Chinese hackers”  goose-stepping in  straight ranks and hell-bent on hacking anyone who stands in their way. Instead, substitute an image more like the wild, wild West with gunslingers taking the law into their own hands, bullying, competing, winning and defending their territories. And the Sheriff is nowhere in sight. This isn’t something that anybody’s going to get under control any time soon.

The loose end this article, China’s Hacker Army, in Foreign Policy (March 3, 2009) leaves open is that since the Chinese government isn’t really controlling and coordinating the hacking, there’s something else going on that we don’t understand yet. Is someone paying for the spoils the hackers bring back from their quests? Are they doing this for fame, not fortune? Is it perhaps free-enterprise with the goods being sold to the highest bidder?

”There are many actors, some directed by the government and others tolerated by it…”

“But the fact that these hackers’ interests overlap with Chinese policy does not mean they are working on behalf of Beijing, and indeed many of their activities suggest no government interference at all.” … “An unwritten rule holds that freelance hackers are left alone as long as they target foreign sites and companies. Once they go after information inside China, the government cracks down. For a hacker interested in self-preservation, the choice is clear.”

“Ultimately, a loose connection between Beijing intelligence operatives and patriotic hackers is more troubling than a strong one. Governments operate under constraints. Gangs of young men — as the United States has learned the hard way — don’t.”