2013年4月10日水曜日

The tools we use are used by various entities.

Big Data- we talk about how companies use it. How governments use it. How it is used in political campaigns, and of course intelligence agencies uses it too.

At GigaOm's Data: Structure conference, Ira (Gus) Hunt, the CTO of CIA talks about how they collect and use big data.




"Mobile is not secure. Repeat after me. Mobile is not secure."

The Raw Story: CIA’s big data mission: ‘Collect everything and hang onto it forever’

Business Insider :CIA Chief Tech Officer: Big Data Is The Future And We Own It

"After laying out what the CIA does — i.e. collect intelligence, conduct analysis, perform covert action — CIA CTO Ira "Gus" Hunt detailed just how the agency plans to acquire, store, and analyze digital data on a massive scale."

GigaOm's article on the conference: Big data needs people, leaders and real-time analytics: A Structure:Data 2013 recap
You can see the videos from the conference here



And tools like Wearable computers and glass-shaped devices. Yes, citizens will use it. Geeks will use it. And the policemen are already getting ready to use it?

Google Glass for cops: How Taser plans to bring wearable, real-time tech to the police frontline





Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare




The Verge: Killing hackers is justified in cyber warfare, says NATO-commissioned report
Silicon Angle: NATO Document – Hacktivists Can Be Killed Under Rules of CyberWarfare



As we examine the manual, it takes careful care to describe hacktivists – And provides the following definition in its 6-page cyber security focused glossary.

“Hacktivist: A private citizen who on his or her own initiative engages in hacking for, inter alia, ideological, political, religious or patriotic reasons.”

Under this definition, a “hacktivist”, as a result of a cyber attack, (also defined) can be legitimately targeted as a military target.

“An act of direct participation in hostilities by civilians renders them liable to be attacked, by cyber or other lawful means. Additionally, harm to direct participants is not considered when assessing the proportionality of an attack (rule 51) or determining the precautions that must be taken to avoid harming civilians during military operations.”

In other words, under these rules, there’s no reservation on the potential harm, assuming even death when it comes to response to a cyberattack.
And so the battle rules for the 21st century and beyond have been forged. With the authority of NATO behind this document, it can be safely assumed that while the document itself may not be formal canon, it will have influence and reference throughout the ages. Much like commonly referred to military rules of engagement, such as the treaties of the 1949 Geneva Conventions – this document could serve as justification and a guideline for future cyber wars. If you are a hacker, then you may be a soldier.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of my employer. -Fumi Yamazaki