Just posted on Twitter a link to the website BoingBoing ??? The Cyber War guide for twittering during the Iranian Demonstrations.
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/06/16...ide-for-i.html
Printable View
Just posted on Twitter a link to the website BoingBoing ??? The Cyber War guide for twittering during the Iranian Demonstrations.
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/06/16...ide-for-i.html
What is going on in social media is NOT cyber warfare. It is social protest, and so much more using common collaborative tools. It is not cyber warfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabers8th
Not so sure that the govt there would agree with us though;)Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
How to set up a Windows proxy for Iranian users. The government is shutting down proxies so that the opposition cannot get its message out on Twitter. New proxies needed:
http://blog.austinheap.com/2009/06/1...s-for-windows/
The government has been wrong before and so has the media. The suggestion by so many that social commentary, organization to protest, and basically information operations using netcentric tactics is cyber warfare is woefully inadequate. As I've built my theory and gathered supporting evidence I've come to some startling conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey
1) Cyber-warfare is a separate domain that interacts with all the other domains (though i call them terrains).
2) As the domains/terrains are broad spectrum conflict so is cyber warfare.
3) People push small segments of cyber warfare that they understand as the totality of the battle space is extensive.
4) Cyber warfare isn't I/O it is Insurgency. I/O is PART of insurgency.
Right now on my blog five groups of graduate students with wildly differing abilities are investigating red teaming/penetration testing using a taxonomy I developed as part of my cyber warfare research. We've already pretty conclusively proven most peoples ideas of offensive cyber warfare are inadequate. People only look at one or two levels of a 9 level hierarchy. A current "cyber warfare" contest being put on by DOD is a good example of that idiocy.
ETA: Consider this. Just because a terrorist takes a ferry boat on the way to bomb the night club does not make it naval warfare. If he rams the ferry boat into a super tanker full of oil that is a bit different. People using the Internet to get ideas out or for command and control is NOT cyber warfare. If we use the telephone to call up a national guard unit we don't call it "telco warfare". But, the term is sexy so it gets over used.
There is something of a cyberwar component to this, given the use of DDoS attacks on official Iranian government servers by external volunteers. Ironically, these are almost wholly counterproductive in my view, chewing up scarce Iranian bandwidth and potentially convincing some fence-sitters in the Iranian government and security services that they are indeed facing an external conspiracy. Hardly helpful.
Beyond that, I agree that most of this is simply social networking. I've been following the Twitter feeds fairly closely, and the signal:noise ratio tilts heavily toward the latter—there's much baseless rumour-mongering, mindless repetition, and even heroic expressions of outside support that are actually counterproductive. Real news, especially of the sort that would be useful inside Iran, is quite rare.
I doubt that Twitter is actually playing a very large role in local mobilization, and that its political impact is far less than cellphones, cellphone cams, or the use of the internet to distribute local pics and video.
In my opinion, I'd think in totalitarian and autocratic regimes, any form of social mobilisation through electronic and cyber means could be realistically construed as warfare, or at least, a low-intensity form of action that seeks to undermine their perceived legitimate mandate to run the channels of power and control out to the masses.
Hence, we see official Iranian statements attacking the role of the BBC et al, for their coverage.