Is hacking Skype a human rights violation?

Not twenty four hours ago did I write about how the Pentagon is going to announce how cyber-attacks could be casus belli. Now the Wall Street Journal reports that an Egyptian intelligence agency was monitoring Skype communications of dissidents. Let’s first agree on a truth. No one’s right to privacy is absolute or ever assured. However, plotting the peaceful overthrow of a government (in America we call that an election) should not be subject to snooping. If we can go to war over hacking, should we not then also stand up for people’s human rights to peacefully and privately express their views? Ronald Reagan used to rail on how the Soviet Union wasn’t free. He was right. Now here we are in age of the Internet. What do his words mean in today’s context? The free flow of information is a human right. It’s not absolute if, for instance, you’re talking about robbing a bank.

By the way, the Egyptians did not break Skype’s encryption, but instead seem to have infected the system of the dissidents. That’s something Skype can only partially control- that is, if the infection was spread by Skype’s Instant Messaging capability, then they do bear some responsibility. But if it was spread by other means, then there’s really not much they can do.

Pentagon: cyber-attacks an act of war

Today’s Wall Street Journal reports that the Pentagon will say that cyberattacks from foreign countries are acts of war. As someone in the business I have a few questions.

First, with botnets being widespread within the United States, how will the Pentagon determine with sufficient reliability that an attack will have been originated from outside the U.S?

How will they determine that the attack would have been originated by a foreign government? This is a difficult distinction to make. By way of example, some time ago, Cambridge researchers uncovered an attack originating from China on The Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in California. Was the government of China responsible? Maybe. Is it not more likely we would see asymmetric attacks?

Just because you believe a government has committed an act of war, does it mean one goes to war? In the U.S. that power is reserved. Only Congress can declare war. However, in practice, it is the president who initially engages in armed conflict.

Once at war, how would we respond? Clausewitz and Sun Tsu tell us that one only goes to war to effect a change, and with the confidence to win. Would we therefore bomb to the stone age attackers?

I would like to believe that before we make any firm statements that we have clear answers to the above questions, lest a cyber Casus Belli lead to a repeat of Viet Nam or Iraq.

Our Supposed Healthcare System

Let’s do a brief comparison of the U.S. to the civilized world, when it comes to healthcare insurance and what actually happens when a child is born. In Switzerland, when a child is born, both the mother and the child may stay up to five days in the hospital. For even the slightest complication that time gets extended for both.

In the U.S., an insured mother and her child are entitled two days. If there is a problem with one, as was the case with my new niece (she was jaundiced and required an extra day), she is separated from the mother, who in this case herself spent the night in the hospital lobby so that she could nurse her newborn daughter, three days after having given birth.

Which would you want for your wife, sister, or daughter? U.S. or civilized? If you answered “civilized”, then you get to answer another question: who are the people who should supervise our profit-oriented health insurance industry, and where are they? I personally would like to know. By the way, here in Switzerland my family and I pay less than most Americans our ages for healthcare, and we’ve not been turned down for anything we needed (in fact we’ve never even had an argument about it). Now- does that change your answer?

CNN: Lawymakers rethinking (their) security

CNN reports that in the aftermath of the Tucson shooting, House and Senate leaders are considering additional security for their members. That’s all fine and dandy, but my simple question is this:

What about the rest of us?

This guy went in and legally bought a 9mm Glock with ammo, even though his friends and schools knew he was a little nutty. All of the dead people weren’t in Congress. They were collateral damage. What about them? The first person who says that a nine year old should be defending herself from a Glock gets a Bronx Cheer.

Christina-Taylor Green is one of the dead in Arizona

Much focus has been given on the condition of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, after she was shot by Jared Loughner. But she was by no means the only victim, nor did she fare the worst. The Philadelphia Inquirer notes that former Phillies manager Dallas Green lost a granddaughter, Christina-Taylor Green. She was nine years old, and in third grade. Her story itself is remarkable, and her tragic death would outrage any human. It is too easy to dismiss as the work of one troubled boy. While others might call him evil and dismiss this as an isolated act, he had a whole lot of help from our society to get to the point where a nine year old girl and nineteen others would die. My thoughts are with her family and the families of those who died.