America’s War On Terror was a war on American ideals driven by fear. Let’s hope for better.
U.S. Air Force photo/Denise Gould
It’s September 11th, 2024. Yet another anniversary of that horrible day in 2001. I always dread this day. For years it has served as a reminder of how far we have to go to heal ourselves not only from the events of that day, but from the self-inflicted wounds that followed. Given that we are 23 years on, now seems like a good time to take stock of the cost of our fears, and maybe hope for better.
In the aftermath of 9/11, the passage of the Patriot Act that dramatically expanded government surveillance powers was no doubt well-intentioned, but an assault on libraries and privacy as a whole. We began to severely restrict who could visit the United States, and our government tortured people. We tarnished American ideals not unlike the injustice committed against Japanese Americans in the 1940s, as our society scrutinized an entire classesof immigrants and Americans for the actions of a few who cruelly took advantage of our openness and generosity. We did that to ourselves. These acts were our choice.
We engaged in a war in Afghanistan that served only to lead to Osama bin Laden’s death, but cost the lives 2,342 American military personnel, 3,917 contractors, over 116,000 Afghans, and over 60,000 Pakistani people (people always seem to forget the Pakastanis). We engaged in a second war in Iraq that served only to see off Saddam Hussein, but at the cost of 292 ally soldiers and as many as 50,000 Iraqis, while at the same time destabilizing the region. We did this to ourselves and others. It was our choice.
President Bush’s War On Terror turned into a terror of its own. Many of us became fearful, insular, and and xenophobic. In the 2000s we saw everything through the lens of 9/11, and we could not unsee those towers falling, and our friends and family dying, and we withdrew from the world, and we became scared. Our federal buildings and monuments were blocked from the People by “visitor centers”. We used our might solely as a means of revenge, and not for good. It was reflected in many aspects of our culture, most notably television shows and movies in which there was a bad guy who spoke with an Arab accent. We did that to ourselves. It was our choice.
9/11 put an end to the Israeli/Palestinian peace process, which was, to be fair, already in trouble. Never again were the two sides seriously willing to sit down for talks, although occasionally one side or the other paid lip service as America stepped away from the table. We did that to ourselves, not bin Laden. That was our choice.
And then we elected Donald Trump in 2016 in xenophobic craze, and he targeted a new bogeyman, China. The Chinese government plays a bad guy right out of central casting: they persecute minorities, put profit before principle, and fully believe that might makes right, but are otherwise incompetent in a crisis. Sounds familiar? Meanwhile we ignored the threat of Putin for over two decades. Meanwhile, over 1.2 million Americans died of COVID, and a gun violence epidemic ravages and terrorizes our youth. We did that to ourselves. It was our choice.
We could keep making the same mistakes based on fear.
But on this 9/11 I see a bit more hope. We have, I think, healed at least a bit. For the most part, we no longer look through the lens of that day. We are beginning to show some resilience. And this has been coming for a while. Each year I see more glimmers of President Reagan’s “shining the city on the hill”. Of course there are always new challenges, my favorite being climate change. Here’s one for you: China plans to activate thorium nuclear reactors next year to reduce its carbon footprint. Yeah, that big bugaboo, China. Maybe just maybe, there are now more of us who have gotten beyond fear, who are seeking to grab onto the possibilities before us, who don’t define themselves by who or what they hate, and can lead the way to that city on the hill out of a sense of hope.
May the memory of those who died on that day and because of that day always be a blessing to all who knew them, may we all live in peace; and may we learn from our mistakes, and may we not live in fear of the future.
Everyone wants everyone to say something about what is happening in Israel and Gaza. Here in Switzerland the conversation since the attack has been All Israel All The Time. Everyone around the world has an opinion, of course. Here in Switzerland, the discussion is thoughtful. You would not hear anyone defend Hamas’ murderous actions.
It’s one thing to have opinions; it’s quite another to be grieving the loss of one’s friends and/or family, and worrying about one’s children who have been called up. My employer’s Israeli offices are somewhat emptier for that reason.
I look up at my office wall these days and see a response from President Ford’s staff to a letter I wrote him in 1975 about Israel when I was a child. I remember writing him, suggesting that he throw both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership in a room and not let them out until they have a peace plan. Back then I knew I had the answers.
Over the years, there have been signs of hope. Seeing Sadat engage Israel, or the work that successive administrations undertook that led to the famous handshake you see here. Those days led to the hope that Israelis and Palestinians could live side by side.
Now I worry that this conflict will survive me and my generation, as it will have our parents. I hope and pray that it does not outlive our children, and that they will be more imaginative than us.
You may have seen my #MusicMonday list. Last week’s contribution was Hatikva. The Hope survived, even as many of the children in that video did not. The hope of peace and prosperity must survive for all. My only plea is for all parties, Israelis and Palestinians in particular, to work to preserve that hope.
Diane Feinstein was a force to be reckoned with, and she gave her all for San Franciscans, Californians, women, the LBGTQ community, and America.
I want to say a few words about our late Senator and my late neighbor, Diane Feinstein.
I remember when Di Fi ran for governor and lost to Pete Wilson in 1990, and how disappointed I was for her, and how excited we all were when she and Barbara Boxer were both elected to the Senate in 1992, along with Bill Clinton. We all departed some friends’ Election Night party, and piled onto Castro Street, and then the party really began; and she was there. She was always there for California and for Americans.
A common “social” event in those years in the Bay Area was a funeral for a person who died of AIDS, and Di Fi was right there for the LGBT community, as it was called back then. She was also there to defend a woman’s right to choose, and she was there to govern, as she had with San Francisco, having been the person who found Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk shot dead by Dan White. That’s where she learned that to govern, you have to find common ground with those who don’t always agree with you. It’s an important lesson that is lost on many in the House of Representatives these days.
The brutal death of her friends shaped her politics, to be sure. She was a hawk in the same vein as Sam Nunn, although they didn’t agree on social issues. She viewed encryption as a threat, and I was witness to one side of a conversation in which she lambasted one of my friends who was a policy maker at the time. She had no truck with those she thought were in the wrong. That is not to say I agreed with her on encryption- I did not. She could often be blunt, but she understood that we are all Americans, and that we had to work together for the good of the country, and that did mean crossing the aisle on occasion.
I do think she stayed at least one term too many. Some records should not be broken. If this is her biggest failing, as a long time constituent, I could easily forgive her this fault.
“Neighbor”, you ask? Yes. In 1992, Di Fi was my neighbor on the other side of Temple Emanuel. She lived on one of the wealthiest streets in San Francisco, Presidio Terrace, while I lived in a broken down flat on Arguello Blvd. We didn’t exchange calling cards back then, but I had visited her Senate office a few times.
Our way of life and form of government require the sternest possible punishment for those who would attack either. Republicans need to support America, and not just winning.
The charges that have been leveled against Trump are political but not in the sense that Republicans claim. Our way of life requires that those who attain high office be severely punished when they attack our American system of democracy and justice, as Trump and his lackeys did.
Some people might say, “Well, these are just Democratic prosecutors going after a Republican they don’t like.” Let’s look at the accusations:
In New York, Trump stands accused of felony bank fraud for having falsified records in his attempt to cover up his affair with a porn star. He is accused of doing this to win not just any election, but a presidential election.
In Washington, Trump and others stand accused attempting to fraudulantly thwart the peaceful and legal transfer of power, and the prosecutors have produced overwhelming evidence, including Trump’s own words.
In Atlanta, Trump and others stand accused of fraudulently attempting to “find” over 11,000 votes, once again in an attempt to overturn an election.
In short, Trump attempted to steal an election. It is undeniable.
Trump’s own tactics have been to accuse others of exactly the crimes he has knowingly committed. Thus we hear the rhetoric of “Stop the Steal”, when he himself attempted to do the stealing, as the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates. The idea that Trump started his own social network called “Truth” demonstrates the depths of his depravity. He and truth rarely have met, and only ever to his disadvantage, as these indictments and the facts behind them demonstrate.
Trump had many co-conspirators, many of whom remain unindicted, such as the so-called “news” organizations like Fox News, who had to settle with Dominion voting for the lies they perpetuated; NewsMax, whose day is coming; and Republican office holders who disgraced themselves by violating their oaths to protect the Constitution. Many of those people have yet to be held accountable by their constituents. That in itself reflects the depths of trouble in which American democracy finds itself.
I note that not all Republicans are in disgrace. Former Governor Chris Christie stands out as the most vocal and consistent of Trump’s critics. But judging by the polls, Christie is in a small minority.
So, Republican citizens: the day of reckoning is here. Is the object simply to have your guy remain in power, no matter the lies and cheating? Will you put country before winning and before worship of this grifter and once again make America a beacon of democracy? That is what will make America great again.
Encryption makes the Internet possible, but there are some controversial and other downright stupid uses for which we all pay.
Imagine someone creating or supporting a technology that consumes vast amounts of energy only to produce nothing of intrinsic value and being proud of that of that fact. Such is the mentality of Bitcoin supporters. As the Financial Times reported several days ago, Bitcoin mining, the process by which this electronic fools’ gold is “discovered”, takes up as much power as a small country. And for what?
Cambridge University Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index
The euro, yen, and dollar are all tied to the fortunes and monetary policies of societies as represented by various governments. Those currencies are all governed by rules of their societies. Bitcoin is an attempt to strip away those controls. Some simply see cryptocurrencies as a means to disrupt the existing banking system, in order to nab a bit of the financial sector’s revenue. If so, right now they’re not succeeding.
In fact nothing about cryptocurrency is succeeding, while people waste a tremendous amount of resources. Bitcoin has been an empty speculative commodity and a vehicle for criminals to receive ransoms and other fees, as happened recently when the Colonial Pipeline paid a massive $4.4 million to DarkSide, a gang of cyber criminals.
What makes this currency attractive to hackers is that otherwise intelligent people purchase and promote the pseudo-currency. Elon Musk’s abrupt entrance and exit (that some might call Pump and Dump), demonstrates how fleeting that value may be.
Bitcoin is nothing more than an expression of what some would call crypto-governance, a belief that somehow technology is above it all and somehow is its own intrinsic benefit to some vague society. I call it cryptophilia: an unnatural and irrational love of all things cryptography, in an attempt to defend against some government, somewhere.
Cryptography As a Societal Benefit
Let’s be clear: Without encryption there could be no Internet. That’s because it would simply be too easy for criminals to steal information. And as is discussed below, we have no shortage of criminals. Today, thanks to efforts by people like letencrypt.org, the majority of traffic on the Internet is encrypted, and by and large this is a good thing.
This journey took decades, and it is by no means complete.
Some see encryption as a means by those in societies who lack basic freedoms as a means to express themselves. The argument goes that in free societies, governments are not meant to police our speech or our associations, and so they should have no problem with the fact that we choose to do so out of their ear shot, the implication being that governments themselves are the greatest threat to people.
Distilling Harm and Benefit
Bitcoin is an egregious example of how this can go very wrong. A more complicated case to study is the Tor network, which obscures endpoints through a mechanism known as onion routing. The proponents of Tor claim that it protects privacy and enables human rights. Critics find that Tor is used for illicit activity. Both may be right.
Back in 2016, Matthew Prince, the CEO of Cloudflare reported that, “Based on data across the CloudFlare network, 94% of requests that we see across the Tor network are per se malicious.” He went on to highly that a large portion of spam originated in some way from the Tor network.
One recent study by Eric Jardine and colleagues has shown that some 6.7% of all ToR requests are likely malicious activity. The study also asserts that so-called “free” countries are bearing the brunt of the cost of Tor, both in terms of infrastructure and crime. The Center for Strategic Studies quantifies the cost at $945 billion, annually, with the losses having accelerated by 50% over two years. The Tor network is key enabling technology for the criminals who are driving those costs, as the Colonial Pipeline attack so dramatically demonstrated.
Torflow visualization of the Tor network (2016)
Each dot on the diagram above demonstrates a waste of resources, as packets make traversals to mask their source. Each packet may be routed and rerouted numerous times. What’s interesting to note is how dark Asia, Africa, and South America were.
While things have improved somewhat since 2016, bandwidth in many of these regions still comes at a premium. This is consistent with Jardine’s study. Miscreants such as DarkSide are in those dots, but so too are those who are seeking anonymity for what you might think are legitimate reasons.
One might think that individuals have not been prosecuted for using encrypted technologies, but governments have been successful in infiltrating some parts of the so-called dark web. A recent takedown of a child porn ring followed a large drug bust last year by breaking into Tor network sites is enlightening. First, one wonders how many other criminal enterprises haven’t been discovered. As important, if governments we like can do this, so can others. The European Commission recently funded several rounds of research into distributed trust models. Governance was barely a topic.
Other Forms of Cryptophilia: Oblivious HTTP
A new proposal known as Oblivious HTTP has appeared at the IETF that would have proxies forward encrypted requests to web servers, with the idea of obscuring traceable information about the requestor.
Oblivious HTTP, from draft-thomson-http-oblivious-01
This will work with simple requests a’la DNS over HTTP, but as the authors note, there are several challenges. The first is that HTTP header information, which would be lost as part of this transaction, actually facilitates the smooth use o the web. This is particularly true with those evil cookies about which we hear so much. Thus any sort of session information would have to be re-created in the encrypted web content, or worse, in the URL itself.
Next, there is a key discovery problem: if one is encrypting end-to-end, one needs to have the correct key for the other end. If one allows for the possibility of receiving such information using non-oblivious methods to the desired web site, then it is possible to obscure the traffic in the future. But then an interloper may know at least that the site was visited once.
The other challenge is that there is no point of obscuring the information if the proxy itself cannot be trusted, and it doesn’t run for free: someone has to pay its bills. This brings us back to Jardine, and who is paying for all of this.
Does encryption actually improve freedom?
Perhaps the best measure of whether encryption has improved freedoms can be found in the place with the biggest barrier to those freedoms on the Internet: China. China is one of the least free countries in the world, according to Freedom House.
Freedom to use encryption: not all countries are assessed.
Paradoxically, one might answer the question that freedom and encryption seem to go hand in glove, at least to a certain point. However, the causal effects seem to indicate that encryption is an outgrowth of freedom, and not the other way around. China blocks the use of Tor, as it does many sites through its Great Firewall, and there has been no lasting documented example that demonstrates that tools such as Tor have had a lasting positive impact.
On the other hand, to demonstrate how complex the situation is, and why Jardine’s (and everyone else’s) work is so speculative, it’s not like dissidents and marginalized people are going to stand up for a survey, and say, “Yes, here I am, and I’m subverting my own government’s policies.”
Oppression as a Service (OaaS)
Cryptophiliacs believe that they can ultimately beat out, or at least stay ahead of the authorities, whereas China has shown its great firewall to be fully capable of adapting to new technologies over time. China and others might also employ another tactic: persisting meta-information for long periods of time, until flaws in privacy-enhancing technology can be found.
This gives rise to a nefarious opportunity: Oppression as a Service. Just as good companies will often test out new technology in their own environments, and then sell it to others, so too could a country with a lot of experience at blocking or monitoring traffic. The price they charge might well depend on their aims. If profit is pure motive, some countries might balk at the price. But if ideology is the aim, common interest could be found.
For China, this could be a mere extension of its Belt and Road initiative. Cryptography does not stop oppression. But it may – paradoxically – stop some communication, as our current several Internets continue to fragment into the multiple Internets that former Google CEO Eric Schmidt raised in 2018 thought he was predicting (he was really observing).
Could the individual seeking to have a private conversation with a relative or partner fly under the radar of all of this state mechanism? Perhaps for now. VPN services for visitors to China thrive; but those same services are generally not available to Chinese residents, and the risks of being caught using them may far outweigh the benefits.
Re-establishing Trust: A Government Role?
In the meantime, cyber-losses continue to mount. Like any other technology, the genie is out of the bottle with encryption. But should services that make use of it be encouraged? When does its measurable utility become more a fetish?
By relying on cryptography we may be letting ourselves and others off the hook for their poor behavior. When a technical approach to enable free speech and privacy exists, who says to a miscreant country, “Don’t abuse your citizens”? At what point do we say that, regardless, and at what point do democracies not only take responsibility for their own governments’ bad behavior, but also press totalitarian regimes to protect their citizens?
The answer may lie in the trust models that underpin cryptography. It is not enough to encrypt traffic. If you do so, but don’t know who you are dealing with on the other end, all you have done is limited your exposure to that other end. But trusting that other end requires common norms to be set and enforced. Will you buy your medicines from just anyone? And if you do and they turn out to be poisons, what is your redress? You have none if you cannot establish rules of the Internet road. In other words, governance.
Maybe It’s On Us
Absent the sort of very intrusive government regulation that China imposes, the one argument that cryptophiliacs have in their pocket that may be difficult for anyone to surmount is the idea that, with the right tools, the individual gets to decide this issue, and not any form of collective. That’s no form of governance. At that point we had better all be cryptophiliacs.
We as individuals have a responsibility to decide the impact of our decisions. If buying a bitcoin is going to encourage more waste and prop up criminals, maybe we had best not. That’s the easy call. The hard call is how we support human rights while at the same time being able to stop attacks on our infrastructure, where people can die as a result, but for different reasons.
Editorial note: I had initially misspelled cryptophilia. Thanks to Elizabeth Zwicky for pointing out this mistake.
