Posted on 09/24/2016 9:40:29 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
Please brace for just one thick sentence:
ICANN's power is mainly legal, and a contract with ICANN could trigger a violent dispute over international law.
~ ~ ~
Bluntly stated: giving away ICANN could ultimately trigger a cyber war or worse.
~ ~ ~
Raw Power and International Law
When you face a super power like the USA it helps to have raw power. China probably assumes it will not come to that, but just like nuclear deterence, they need the war-making capability.
And the Chinese already enjoy raw power. Their encryption is superior, their nuclear capability suffices, and they are now experienced at cyber warfare.
Compare that to the US -- NSA recently got hacked. That was supposed to be the best encrypted, best protected agency in our nation. Imagine if all of our satellites got simultaneously hacked. We would be blind and appear weak in the eyes of the world.
International Law
The reason China is building a compound to welcome ICANN is international legitimacy. Other tyrants seeking to censor online speech can seek a shiny new contract with Obama's Free Range ICANN.
Bluntly stated: ICANN helps China build a large alliance to alienate the USA if it comes to a full-scale 'cyber-war'.
~~~
China's Cyber-Skirmishes, Probing with Bayonets
It's been widely reported that China is already waging a cyber-war. But in my opinion those are just skirmishes, raids to test their capability and possibly pick up more tech, intel to blackmail, etc.
~~~
Superior Chinese Encryption
China developed something revolutionary.
Back in 2014, the UK Telegraph reported that China developed 'quantum encryption'. It's a pioneering concept said to be impenetrable to hackers.
Here's a more recent headline:
Aug 20, 2016:
China's Latest Leap Forward Isn't Just Great—It's Quantum - WSJ
by The Verge:
China’s quantum network could soon span two continents, thanks to a satellite launched earlier today ... the Quantum Science Satellite is designed to distribute quantum-encrypted keys between relay stations in China and Europe. When working as planned, the result could enable unprecedented levels of security between parties on different continents. [snip]
That was written in August 15 -- mid-August of this year, the same time that Strickling boasted of his criminal transition plan of ICANN.
But actually, here's a March 2016 report ...
[Be advised -- the article is difficult to wrap your brain around.]
China's Quantum Satellite Could Change Cryptography Forever
-- by Jeffrey Lin, P.W. Singer, and John Costello [at popsci.com]
[snippets]
... China is poised to launch a project that may provide the path to an uncrackable communications system, by turning messages quantum and taking them into space. The new Quantum Space Satellite (QUESS) program is no mere science experiment. China is already becoming a world leader in quantum communications technology ... a strategic asset for Chinese power worldwide.
[snip]
Quantum entanglement is the act of fusing two or more particles into complementary “quantum states.” In such states, no particle can be independently described, instead the particles exist in a hazy shared quantum state that “collapses” when observed. Quantum encryption thus takes advantage of this feature, using it to detect would-be eavesdroppers, whose presence causes quantum states to collapse and reveal their spying to legitimate parties. Additionally, the complexity of quantum mechanics makes it virtually impossible to reverse engineer the quantum key generated through quantum entanglement.
[snip]
[link to be provided in followup post]
...
I am left to believe that it's unlikely that the USA currently stands a chance against China in a cyber-war until we work out better encryption ourselves, and we would have to develop it WHILE sustaining cyber-bombardment. We would need our developers to get off the internet completely, and that would slow down their progress.
The only reason why China doesn't dominate the internet yet is probably because they want us to keep importing their goods.
But it runs deeper than that. What about satellites?
Satellites are critical to dominance of today's internet.
Back in March 16 Bill Gertz wrote:
~
China, Russia Planning Space Attacks on U.S. Satellites
China and Russia are preparing to attack and disrupt critical U.S. military and intelligence satellites in a future conflict with crippling space missile, maneuvering satellite, and laser attacks, senior Pentagon and intelligence officials told Congress on Tuesday. [snip]
[The the primary concern in the article was a direct military threat ...]
U.S. Global Positioning System satellites remain vulnerable to attack or jamming.
[snip]
~
So yes, our targeting systems would be blinded. That in itself would would be decisive in cyber-warfare.
But destruction of GPS satellites is also a 'raw force' threat to our communications satellites as well. While our GPS is blinded, they can pick off our com-sats one-by-one. No more cell phones, no more wireless internet -- just landlines. We would be back in the '70s while China becomes the world's hub of online communications.
I doubt that China wants to destroy our economy let alone 'nuke' our cities. However, they would love to prove their super power status and be viewed as the world's new technological leader. And if they can't beat us via encryption, they can wipe out our communications satellites directly, one at a time, until we kowtow to their 'reasonable' demands.
In fact, it might be prudent to ask President Obama if it is already too late to oppose China's dominance. Behind closed doors he might be feeling 'blackmail pressure' to hand over ICANN to them as a gesture of surrender.
~~~
Brain Drain to China Quite Possible
If the US loses prestige regarding ICANN, it is possible that talent will 'drain' into China rather than the US. We currently draw in so much talent from the world that some of us feel contempt toward 'foreign geeks', but mark my words -- we benefited greatly from the 'foreign geeks' who fled from Nazi Germany into the US. And our weakness [loss of prestige] could cause us to lose that edge.
Even US college grads could feel enticed by job offers in China.
In such a climate, how could we ever hope to improve our encryption and win a prolonged cyber-war?
~~~
We should Not Trust Obama -- specifically why
The most glaring reason to not trust Obama is that his administration refuses to even contemplate the dangers in public.
Instead, they attempted two brazen stabs at spin:
1. Deregulation
The Obama administration claims that he is 'deregulating' the internet with a 'Free Range ICANN'.
First off, ICANN is assisting China in suppression of free speech. That's a good indicator of what a 'Free Range ICANN' looks like.
Secondly, the internet is the USA's most deregulated industry, and that all foreign governments want to do is increase its regulation.
A man who ought to know something about how foreign governments tick is John Bolton: “But the fact is, under American control, it’s had remarkable growth. It’s been kept free. It’s been able to withstand a lot of pressure to try and set rules that favor one side or another. And in an international environment, I can tell you from my own experience, when you get all kinds of governments from all over the world setting standards and making decisions, it will be far less free than it is now ... "
Bolton called the Internet handover “a mistake of such colossal proportions that you would have thought we’d have a huge debate about it in this country.”
2. A 'Gift to Russia'
The Obama administration also claims that renewing the contract would be a 'gift to Russia'.
First off, I'm not yet aware of Russia building any facilities for ICANN's relocation. China is.
Secondly, many in Obama's adminstration are or were close to the Clinton family. And it is well-documented that the Clinton administration sold US technology to China in exchange for illegal campaign funding. That includes satellite technology and encryption technology as well -- a corrupt gift from the Clintons.
[More on how Bill Clinton paved the way for this coming up in a followup post.]
Thirdly, Obama and Hillary Clinton dropped the ball on encryption. Why?
Fourthly, Obama has been begging China to buy bonds throughout his administration. He is beholden to them and thus this administration should recuse itself from this debate for that reason alone.
~~~
Conclusion:
Military intel is nothing like modern media. Your enemy doesn't 'spell out' his plans -- he simply attacks. And surprise preemption has been the trend in the history of modern warfare. So you don't have the luxury of being certain about 'friend or foe' until it is too late.
Renewing ICANN's IANA functions contract may help unravel China's apparent designs. While that could make us appear to be 'control freaks' in the world's eyes, we need a competent Executive Branch to navigate this clear and present danger.
More importantly, trusting the Clintons with our military and communications technology another time around would only make the problem worse. They gave massive amounts of it away before and would most likely do it again.
I'm putting libertarians on notice -- if you have any love for internet freedom of speech and online intellectual property rights, your choice is clear: Hillary Clinton must lose this election unless you think that high-tech drone development will fail to suppress China's people even more than they already are. The helplessness of China's people is getting worse every year. The government's technology outstrips human iniative.
It's true that ICANN could fracture. It's true that China's cyber-war might escalate regardless. But we are talking about the USA's Number 1 exporter. China might prefer a seamless transition -- a clean contract with the official ICANN organization.
We might owe China a lot of bond debt, but we do not owe them our nation's soul.
You don’t give your enemy ANY hint as to your capabilities or the means to defeat them; hence, you do NOT publish encryption algorithms. The NSA doesn’t publish military grade encryption for that very reason, not because they the algorithms are weak in any way. In fact, AES is pathetically weak in comparison to military grade encryption.
Like any encryption algorithm AES is not perfect: http://eprint.iacr.org/2009/374 but you can add more rounds: http://security-architect.com/does-size-matter-aes-128-bit-encryption-is-probably-good-enough/ to add strength. As the latter link mentions AES was designed and selected to be both strong and efficient. Therefore it is weaker than it could be without the efficiency requirement.
I am sure there are classified encryption algorithms. But I consider those to be relics of a bygone era. Like this now declassified: https://www.gwern.net/docs/1955-nash In the 50's we classified many things that are common knowledge now. If we still have classified algorithms, how do we know that Snowden didn't send those to the Chinese and Russians?
Please brace for just one thick sentence:
ICANN’s power is mainly legal, and a contract with ICANN could trigger a violent dispute over international law.
~ ~ ~
Bluntly stated: giving away ICANN could ultimately trigger a cyber war or worse.
~ ~ ~
Raw Power and International Law
When you face a super power like the USA it helps to have raw power. China probably assumes it will not come to that, but just like nuclear deterence, they need the war-making capability.
And the Chinese already enjoy raw power. Their encryption is superior, their nuclear capability suffices, and they are now experienced at cyber warfare.
Compare that to the US — NSA recently got hacked. That was supposed to be the best encrypted, best protected agency in our nation. Imagine if all of our satellites got simultaneously hacked. We would be blind and appear weak in the eyes of the world.
Transfer of any Internet regulation presents so many profound ramifications, it is hard to grasp!!
“But I consider those to be relics of a bygone era.”
Without knowing what they are?? Really?
“If we still have classified algorithms, how do we know that Snowden didn’t send those to the Chinese and Russians?”
because anyone that knows the Snowden affair knows he never even came close to knowing such secrets. This “Snowden knew everything” crap is retarded.
‘No offense to you, AW!M, but your encryption is much much much easier to break than any known encryption algorithm ...’
I agree, but a little ‘old school’ mixed in with whatever a person has might not hurt. Especially when you get clever, such as adding a ‘blackhorse’ code in the mix and private understandings with your contacts.
Some of Rommel’s personal spies once used a classic book as a cypher. It was only worked out when British found copies of the books in the packs of agents they caught.
That's incorrect. Snowden stole and revealed TS SCI information. Government encryption is SCI.
“That’s incorrect. Snowden stole and revealed TS SCI information. Government encryption is SCI. “
So, you think because encryption might be SCI that anything and everything SCI Snowden had access to it?
No, Snowden could not possibly get all SCI. But he could have gotten it if was SCI, that’s all I am saying. The only way he could not get it, guaranteed, is if it were SAP. Is it possible we have SAP encryption programs? Sure, but that would be difficult or impossible to deploy it at any level lower than SAP.
It's true that the ultimate security, one time pad, could be done with a book like that. But the problem is the key distribution channel, that book or some other method. PKI solves that problem by using a public key that is publicized although it must still be authenticated. I don't think anything better than PKI has been invented for key distribution but there are different implementations like RSA and ECC that many have relative strengths.
Ultimately everything is political. The geeks who started and used to run the internet were apolitical, mostly libertarian. Now the internet is run by big companies run by liberals with a few exceptions like Peter Thiel. They are in bed with the liberal media. I know a pure liberal who has an important internet job and tries to influence elections. I last talked to him in 2012 and it was disgusting. They pretend they are just making the internet easier.
For example searching for Trump lies gets lots of dedicated anti-Trump sites. Searching for Hillary lies gets articles from the Washington Post, politifact and other liberal sources mixed with a few genuine anti-Hillary sites. This is all by design but they are clever enough to never have any algorithm directly biased against Trump or against conservatism. They do it all indirectly.
For example think about the characteristics of the old media (e.g. types of ads, incoming links, outgoing links, etc) versus the new media. If they can bias results to bring up more old media hits that will benefit Hillary.
Seems we would have a never ending parade of globalist candidates being propped up by globalist propaganda from abroad.
We paid for internet...Why is it fair in any sense of the word to transfer any part of it out of US jurisdiction?
That’s not how crypto classification works.
One aspect I had not even thought about enough was favoritism by our most powerful internet companies.
If firewalls separate national TLD networks ...
Facebook and Twitter and and Amazon and Kindle and possibly even Google would favor a more international firewall and probably give the US TLDs second-class status.
Facebook is already working with Europe to police ‘hate speech’ against muslims.
One aspect I had not even thought about enough was favoritism by our most powerful internet companies.
If firewalls separate national TLD networks ...
Facebook and Twitter and and Amazon and Kindle and possibly even Google would favor a more international firewall and probably give the US TLDs second-class status.
Facebook is already working with Europe to police ‘hate speech’ against muslims.
______________________________________
Excellent points! Make sense because the Technocrats are supporting the transfer of internet offshore :(
********************************
AGAIN I WILL ASK THAT ALL FREEPERS WHO CARE ABOUT A FREE INTERNET TO TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO CALL/EMAIL/TWEET THEIR CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS IN NEXT 2 DAYS AND DEMAND THAT PROTECTING INTERNET FREEDOM ACT SB3031 AND HR5418 COME TO FLOOR FOR VOTE AND BE INCLUDED IN THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION. WE ARE DOWN TO THE WIRE FOLKS— 4 DAYS UNTIL SESSION ENDS!!
THIS IS NO TIME FOR KEYBOARD WARRIORS, TIME TO DO SOMETHING BESIDES COMMENTING ON THE PROBLEM.
Bushwon,
Do you think it makes any difference if my Senators won’t care? Who else is open to influence?
T.W.
Well, I think emailing/calling/tweeting Cruz and Duffy would be good—can always throw encouragement their way and they need to know people are supporting their efforts.
Can always tell Dems to quit playing politics with our internet..I will be calling Durbin about that.
I just spoke to McConnell’s office. I am supposed to get a call back (we’ll see...) from someone with more information, but for now, they have no statement about 3031 not being included in the Continuing Resolution (CR), so I left a a comment indicating I think the CR needs to include SB3031 language...
Still trying to get a hold of a person at Cruz DC office.
The thing is regardless of the outcome, if they think “We the people” don’t care, they will do as they please. They should at least know that they are going against the will of the people if this transfer is allowed to occur.
“...they have no statement about 3031 not being included in the Continuing Resolution (CR)...”
If you want distracted by debate fever Freepers to take action, I suggest posting a one sentence vanity stating the targeted goal is putting Icann in the (CR). Isn’t that what step must be taken to halt the transfer this week?
Keep it simple. List the phone number of the few Senators who have power to get it done. if you list only 3 names/numbers, people will find it only takes a few minutes at lunchtime. Maybe title the thread: Do You Have 3 Minutes at Lunchtime to Save the Internet? Post it to Front Page with (Urgent) in title. Something like this.
See my comment above.
Unbelievable, but I believe it!
So if ICANN and China team up to dominate the internet, some people think that we could fight back with firewalls. A balkanized internet.
But the boundries would be both physical and intellectual.
All the titans of the internet: google, amazon, facebook, and twitter — they don’t need the ‘free speech’ zone of the internet anymore. They could unite the rest of the internet where tyrants want to censor free speech.
The freedom of speech zone could be alienated, belittled, and even raided, taunted, and hacked — essentially vandalized.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.