💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp001219.txt captured on 2022-04-29 at 02:48:27.
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-03-01)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"Netwars" and Activists Power on the Internet
by Jason Wehling
Since the so-called Republican victory in the last U.S. election,
the political Left in America has been sent reeling. In many
places including the major media, we have been told that this
victory spells a new revolution, a revolution for the Right with
a massive 17% of the potential electorate voting republican.
Regardless of the truth of these claims, many there have felt
that their activist work has been for not and that it has been
largely ineffectual. Interestingly a Rand corporation researcher,
David Ronfeldt, argues that contrary to the impotence felt by
many social activists, they have become an important and powerful
force fuelled by the advent of the information revolution.
Through computer and communication networks, especially via the
world-wide Internet, grassroots campaigns have flourished, and
the most importantly, social elites have taken notice.
Ronfeldt specializes in issues of national security, especially
in the areas of Latin American and the impact of new
informational technologies. Ronfeldt and another colleague coined
the term "netwar" a couple years ago in a Rand document entitled
"Cyberwar is Coming!". "Netwars" are actions by autonomous
groups -- in the context of this article, especially social
movements -- that use informational networks to coordinate action
to influence, change or fight government policy.
Ronfeldt's work became a flurry of discussion on the Internet in
mid-March when Pacific News Service corespondent Joel Simon wrote
an article about Ronfeldt's opinions on the influence of netwars
on the political situation in Mexico. According to Simon,
Ronfeldt holds that the work of social activists on the Internet
has had a large influence -- helping to coordinate the large
demonstrations in Mexico City in support of the Zapatistas and
the proliferation of EZLN communiques across the world via
computer networks. These actions, Ronfeldt argues, have allowed a
network of groups that support the EZLN to muster an
international response, often within hours of actions by
Zedillo's government. In effect, this has forced the Mexican
government to maintain the facade of negotiations with the EZLN
and has on many occasions, actually stopped the army from just
going in to Chiapas and brutally massacring the Zapatistas.
Ronfeldt's position has many implications. First, Ronfeldt is not
independent researcher. He is an employee of the notorious Rand
corporation. Rand is, and has been since it's creation in 1948, a
private appendage of the U.S. military industrial complex. Paul
Dickson, author of the book "Think Tanks", described Rand as the
"first military think tank... undoubtedly the most powerful
research organization associated with the American military." The
famous "Pentagon Papers" that were leaked to the press in June
of 1971 that detailed the horrible U.S. involvement in Vietnam
was produced by Rand.
Ronfeldt himself has authored many research papers for Rand, but
his ties to the military do not end there. Ronfeldt has also
written papers directly for the U.S. military on Military
Communication and more interestingly, for the Central
Intelligence Agency on leadership analysis. No, Ronfeldt's
opinions were not written for aiding activists. It is obvious
that the U.S. government and it's military and intelligence wings
are very interested in what the Left is doing on the Internet.
Netwars: the Dissolution of Hierarchy and the Emergence of
Networks
Ronfeldt argues that "the information revolution... disrupts and
erodes the hierarchies around which institutions are normally
designed. It diffuses and redistributes power, often to the
benefit of what may be considered weaker, smaller actors".
Continuing, "multi-organizational networks consist of (often
small) organizations or parts of institutions that have linked
together to act jointly... making it possible for diverse,
dispersed actors to communicate, consult, coordinate, and operate
together across greater distances, and on the basis of more and
better information than ever."
Ronfeldt emphasizes that "some of the heaviest users of the new
communications networks and technologies are progressive,
centre-left, and social activists... [who work on] human rights,
peace, environmental, consumer, labour, immigration, racial and
gender-based issues." In other words, social activists are on the
cutting edge of the new and powerful "network" system of
organizing.
All governments, especially the U.S. government, have been
extremely antagonistic to this idea of effective use of
information, especially from the political Left. This position is
best stated by Samuel Huntington, Harvard Political Science
professor and author of the U.S. section of the Trilateral
Commission's book-length study, "The Crisis of Democracy".
Basically writing in reaction to the mobilization of people
normally isolated from the political process in the 1960's,
Huntington argued in 1975 that "some of the problems of
governance in the United States today stem from an excess of
democracy... Needed, instead, is a greater degree of moderation
of democracy."
Huntington blatantly maintained that "the effective operation of
a democratic political system usually requires some measure of
apathy and non-involvement on the part of some individuals and
groups... this marginality on the part of some groups is
inherently undemocratic but it is also one of the factors which
has enabled democracy to function effectively." In other words,
major U.S. policy makers feel democracies are acceptable if they
are limited and not very democratic.
To stop this increase in public participation, this "excess of
democracy", Huntington argued that limits should exist on the
media. "There is also the need to assure government the right to
withhold information at the source... Journalists should develop
their own standards of professionalism and create mechanisms,
such as press councils, for enforcing these standards on
themselves. The alternative could well be regulation by
government." Obviously the government is interested in the
control of information. If private institutions like the major
media need regulation, be it self-regulation or directed by the
government, the idea of free, uncontrolled flow of information on
the Internet must mean that a new "crisis of democracy" has
re-emerged in the eyes of government (and other) elites.
To fight this, Ronfeldt maintains that the lesson is clear:
"institutions can be defeated by networks, and it may take
networks to counter networks." He argues that if the U.S.
government and/or military is to fight this ideological war
properly with the intent of winning -- and he does specifically
mention ideology -- it must completely reorganize itself,
scrapping hierarchical organization for a more autonomous and
decentralized system: a network. In this way, he states, "we
expect that... netwar may be uniquely suited to fighting
non-state actors".
Ronfeldt's research and opinion should be flattering for the
political Left. He is basically arguing that the efforts of
activists on computers not only has been very effective or at
least has that potential, but more importantly, argues that the
only way to counter this work is to follow the lead of social
activists. Ronfeldt emphasized in a personal correspondence that
the "information revolution is also strengthening civil-society
actors in many positive ways, and moreover that netwar is not
necessarily a 'bad' thing that necessarily is a 'threat' to U.S.
or other interests. It depends." At the same time, anarchists
should understand the important implications of Ronfeldt's work:
government elites are not only watching these actions (big
surprise), but are also attempting to work against them.
The Attack Has Already Begun
The U.S. government's antagonism to political activism is not
new. During the late 1960's and early 1970's, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation began what is now known as COINTELPRO, or
Counter Intelligence Programs. These programs sought to "expose,
disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" various
political groups, such as the Black Panthers, AIM (the American
Indian Movement), ecological, anti-war, and women's rights
groups. Many feel that these FBI activists have not stopped,
pointing to the disruption and harassment of Earth First! in the
mid- to late-1980's.
Because of the very nature of the Internet and these growing
communication networks, the issues are inherently international
and transcend traditional national boundaries. For these reasons
it is important to watch for attacks on these networks wherever
they occur. And occur they have. Since the beginning of this
year, a number of computer networks, so far confined to Europe,
have been attacked or completely shut down.
In Italy on February 28, members of the Carabinieri Anti-Crime
Special Operations Group raided the homes of a number of
activists -- many active in the anarchist movement. They
confiscated journals, magazines, pamphlets, diaries, and video
tapes. They also took their personal computers, one of which
hosted "BITS Against the Empire", a node of Cybernet and
Fidonet networks. The warrant ridiculously charged them for
"association with intent to subvert the democratic order",
carrying a penalty of 7 to 15 years imprisonment for a
conviction.
Closer to home, a number of computer networks have recently been
attacked in Britain. The Terminal Boredom bulletin board system
(BBS) in Fife was shutdown by police after the arrest of a hacker
who was affiliated with the BBS. Spunk Press, the largest
anarchist archive of published material catalogued on computer
networks has faced a media barrage which has falsely accused them
of working with known terrorists like the Red Army Faction of
Germany, of providing recipes for making bombs and of
coordinating the "disruption of schools, looting of shops and
attacks on multinational firms." Articles by the computer trade
magazine, Computing, and even the Sunday Times, entitled
"Anarchism Runs Riot on the Superhighway" and "Anarchists Use
Computer Highway For Subversion" respectively, nearly lead one
of the organizers of Spunk Press to loose his job after the
smears were published. He has asked that his name not be
mentioned. According to the book "Turning up the Heat: MI5
after the cold war" by Larry O'Hara, one of the journalists who
wrote the Sunday Times article has contacts with MI5.
It is not coincidence that this attack has started first against
anarchists and libertarian-socialists. Anarchists are currently
one of the most organized political grouping on the Internet.
Even Simon Hill, editor of Computing magazine, admits that "we
have been amazed at the level of organization of these... groups
who have appeared on the Internet in a short amount of time".
According to Ronfeldt's thesis, this makes perfect sense. Who
best can exploit a system that "erodes hierarchy" and requires
the coordination of decentralized, autonomous groups in
cooperative actions than anarchists and libertarian-socialists?
These attacks may not be confined to anarchists for long. In the
U.S. where the use of the internet is far more widespread, a
number of bills are before Congress that would affect a large
number of political views. One is S390 (and HR896), which aims to
change the FBI charter so that it can investigate political
groups. It has bipartisan support from members in both parties.
This bill would effectively legalize COINTELPRO operations
against political freedom.
But even more sinister as far as computer networks are concerned,
is S314. This bill would prohibit not only individual speech that
is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent", but would
prohibit any provider of telecommunications service (such as an
Internet provider) from carrying such traffic, under threat of
stiff penalties: $100,000 or two years in prison. According to
the Centre for Democracy and Technology, "the bill would compel
service providers to chose between severely restricting the
activities of their subscribers or completely shutting down their
Email, Internet access and conferencing services under the threat
of criminal liability." In other words, one option before the
U.S. government is to just close down the Internet.
The U.S. government is not the only institution to notice the
power of the Internet in the hands of activists. The Washington
Post ("Mexican Rebels Using a High-Tech Weapon; Internet Helps
Rally Support", by Tod Robberson), Newsweek ("When Words are the
Best Weapon: How the Rebels Use the Internet and Satellite TV",
by Russell Watson) and even CNN (Sunday, February 26) have done
stories about the importance of the Internet and network
communication organization with respect to the Zapatistas.
It is important to point out that the mainstream media is not
interested in the information that circulates across the
Internet. No, they are interested in sensationalising the
activity, even demonizing it, though they correctly see that the
"rebels" possess an incredibly powerful tool.
Netwars Are Effective
A good example of the use of this powerful tool is the incredible
speed and range at which information travels the Internet about
events concerning Mexico and the Zapatistas. When Alexander
Cockburn wrote an article exposing a Chase Manhattan Bank memo
about Chiapas and the Zapatistas in Counterpunch, only a small
number of people read it because it is only a newsletter with a
limited readership. The memo, written by Riordan Roett, was very
important because it argued that "the [Mexican] government will
need to eliminate the Zapatistas to demonstrate their effective
control of the national territory and of security policy". In
other words, if the Mexican government wants investment from
Chase or elsewhere, it will have to crush the Zapatistas in order
to gain "investor confidence". This information was relatively
ineffective when just confined to print. But when it was uploaded
to the Internet (via a large number of List-servers and the
USENET), it suddenly reached a very large number of people. These
people in turn coordinated a protest against the U.S and Mexican
governments and especially Chase Manhattan. Chase was eventually
forced to attempt to distance itself from the Roett memo that it
commissioned.
Anarchists and the Zapatistas is just the tip of the proverbial
iceberg. Currently there are a myriad of social activist
campaigns on the Internet. From local issues like the
anti-Proposition 187 movement in California to "nation-wide"
campaigns like the anti-roads activity in Britain, the network
system of activism is not only working -- and working well as
Ronfeldt admits -- but is growing. It is growing rapidly in
numbers of people involved and growing in political and social
effectiveness. There are many parallels between the current
situation in Chiapas and the drawn out civil war in Guatemala,
yet the Guatemalan military has been able to nearly kill without
impunity while the Mexican military received a coordinated,
international attack literally hours after they mobilize their
troops. The reason is netwars are effective as Ronfeldt concedes,
and when they are used to coordinate activity and spread
information they have been very influential and effective.
What Are Their Options?
According to Ronfeldt's thesis, extreme measures such a S314 will
not be the answer to the problems of that elites, especially
people like Huntington, foresee. Certainly the government sees
this free information network as an annoying problem and will
likely work to change the current trends. Actually destroying the
Internet is not likely for a number of reasons. The opposition to
such an undertaking would be too great and the potential profits
for companies from the internet too large for such an option.
A glimpse at the problem emerged when the government attempted
last year to introduce the now infamous "Clipper Chip." This chip
was to become the standard encryption for the U.S. The
interesting part of the plan was that, while individuals, groups
and corporations could send information across networks without
fear of unwanted eyes peering into their documents, the
government "Clipper Chip" would have a "backdoor" for
intelligence agencies like the FBI. In other words, it was safe
to all except the U.S. government, which would be able to read
any message it wanted to. Basically the Clinton administration
had little support, aside from the FBI, CIA, National Security
Agency (NSA) and AT&T, who was contracted to manufacture the
chip. While the opposition included a wide variety of the
political spectrum from the far-Left to the far-Right. Apparently
the Clinton administration didn't like the odds and proposed that
the Clipper Chip would be a standard within the government only.
According to Ronfeldt's thesis, the idea of dismantling the
Internet is not even an option. The internet and "netwars" are
here to stay, maintains Ronfeldt. The trick is to be better at it
than groups the U.S. government opposes. As has been stated
above, that means creating government networks that can be more
effective than those networks that have been created and
maintained by social activists. Of course, this has inherent
problems of its own. How will U.S. military leaders react when
they hear that the military must "erode" it's system of hierarchy
to evolve into a decentralized and autonomous network of smaller
parts? Certainly there is a paradox in Ronfeldt's arguments.
Much more likely, at least for the time being is Huntington's
notion of regulation of information. Currently, the question of
how laws should be applied to the Internet and other computer
networks is vague and undefined.
In the U.S.A. it could fall into one of three related areas.
First is print media, which is largely protected by the First
amendment. Second is common carriers, such as the telephone and
the U.S postal system -- they are governed by principles of
"universal service" and "fair access." Lastly is broadcasting,
which is highly regulated, primarily by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC).
One scenario is that the Internet would be subjected to FCC
regulation. This might solve the problem voiced by Huntington --
where the government could create barriers and/or limit the free
flow of information to better suit it's wishes. Obviously for
social activists in the U.S. and elsewhere, a much better
scenario is that the Internet, as well as all other computer
networks, would be placed in the category of "common carriers,"
where universal access is assured.
This placement has yet to be resolved, but the battle lines are
already being drawn. Under the guise of saving children from
pedophiles, there is now a media campaign that pushes for
regulation against pornography and other "obscenity" on the
Internet. Last year, Carnegie-Mellon University attempted to
restrict campus users from assess to X-rated photographs on the
Internet. Of course if this comes to pass this would be just the
beginning -- the placement into the category of FCC regulation
would be complete. On the other side is a large number of civil
rights organizations and the Electronic Freedom Foundation argue
for the "common carrier" approach.
What is happening in the U.S.A. will have obvious implications
for here. Already in Britain, the Criminal (In)Justice Act has
already outlawed "computer porn", again showing that these
actions are not isolated events. As the internet becomes more
widely reported in the media and its use continues to grow we can
expect to see similar developments.
Another scenario is control, not via the government, but from
private industry. Many people use the "highway" or "superhighway"
analogy when describing the Internet. But a new analogy has
emerged: the railroad or "super-railroad" if you will. Each one
has very important connotations: the highway is based on free
public access, the railroad is not. The problem springs from the
growing pains that the Internet is currently experiencing. It is
growing a very rapid pace. So rapid, that the "backbone" of the
Net, the high-speed data transmission line over which information
travels is becoming out dated.
One proposal from ANS, a joint venture between IBM and MCI is to
privatise the Internet "backbone," thus creating "toll-roads" for
the Internet. In other words, they lay the new cables, they own
them and users will have to "pay as they go." Currently the
Internet works on cooperation between the computers (nodes) that
make-up the Internet. As information travels from here to there,
all the computers inbetween cooperate by allowing and helping the
information pass through to its destination. With a "pay as you
go" system, the cost of communication would rise and would
effectively limit the ability for social activists and many other
groups from participating in these "netwars" or even using the
internet.
This may be the long term solution, paralleling the fate of last
century's new form of popular communication, the newspaper. Faced
with the same problem, a cheap and accessible medium for
expressing ideas available to the general population, the initial
response was to enforce laws limiting its use (eg censorship laws
and taxation). However, coercion is an ineffective means of
social control and was soon abandoned in the face of better
forces, forces implicit in the development of any commodity under
capitalism, namely the increased concentration of capital
required to produce said commodity for a profit.
As capital costs increased, the laws were revoked as market
forces ensured that only those with access to vast amounts of
money could start even a weekly newspaper. In addition, the need
for advertising to run a paper ensured business control over its
content. Hence, for example, we could see mainstream journals
having free access web sites (funded entirely by advertising)
while dissident publications (who do not desire advertising nor
the control of editorial decisions this implies) will have to
charge in order for their web sites to exist and pay their way.
Under these conditions, a "pay as you go" backbone, sites and
publications subsidised by advertising and high initial capital
costs, the need for laws to control the information super highway
are limited. This, however, is still some way into the future. At
present this option is not available.
What Might We Do?
It is clear than Rand, and possibly other wings of the
establishment, are not only interested in what activists are
doing on the Internet, but they think it is working. It is also
clear that they are studying our activities and analyzing our
potential power. We should do the same, but obviously not from
the perspective of inhibiting our work, but opposite: how to
further facilitate it.
Also, we should turn the tables as it were. They are studying our
behaviour and actions -- we should study theirs. As was outlined
above, we should analyze their movements and attempt to
anticipate attacks as much as possible.
As Ronfeldt argues repeatedly, the potential is there for us to
be more effective. Information is getting out as is abundantly
clear. But we can do better than just a coordination of raw
information, which has been the majority of the "networking" so
far on the Internet. To improve on the work that is being done,
we should attempt to provide more -- especially in the area of
indepth analysis. Not just what we are doing and what the
establishment is doing, but more to the point, we should attempt
to coordinate the dissemination of solid analysis of important
events. In this way members of the activist network will not only
have the advantage of up-to-date information of events, but also
a good background analysis of what each event means, politically,
socially and/or economically as the case may be.
The Flower as a Gift of Thanks
In a recent communique from the Zapatistas, written on March
17th, Subcommandate Marcos reiterated the importance of this
network coordination. It is obvious from his words that these
networks are making a real difference. He said, "and we learned
that there were marches and songs and movies and other things
that were not war in Chiapas, which is the part of Mexico where
we live and die. And we learned that these things happened, and
that "NO TO WAR!" was said in Spain and in France and in Italy
and in Germany and in Russia and in England and in Japan and in
Korea and in Canada and in the United States and in Argentina and
in Uruguay and in Chile and in Venezuela and in Brazil and in
other parts where it wasn't said but it was thought. And so we
saw that there are good people in many parts of the world...".
Marcos obviously was touched by the fact that people have
laboured all over the world for the Zapatista cause. So he closed
the communique with a personal thank you: "And we want to say to
you, to everyone, thank you. And that if we had a flower we would
give it to you... and when they are old, then they can talk with
the children and young people of their country that, 'I struggled
for Mexico at the end of the 20th century, and from over here I
was there with them and I only know that they wanted what all
human beings want, for it is not to be forgotten that they are
human beings and for it to be remembered what democracy, liberty
and justice are, and I did not know their faces but I did know
their hearts and it was the same as ours'... Goodbye. Health and
a promised flower: a green stem, a white flower, red leaves, and
don't worry about the serpent, this that flaps its wings is an
eagle which is in charge of it, you will see..."