About the first cyberwar, an electronic Pearl Harbor
Larry Kummer,
Editor Cybersecurity & cyberwar, War with Iran 26 June 2019
Summary: America’s warriors have long
warned of a cyber attack without warning or declaration of war, an electronic
Pearl Harbor – a day that “will live in infamy.” It happened, and
America did it. We brought cyber warfare into the world, just as we did the
first nuclear attack. Here anthropology professor Maximilian Forte looks at
this historic event.
By Maximilian C. Forte, Professor of Anthropology.
From Zero Anthropology, 25 June 2019.
Reposted with his generous permission.
From Zero Anthropology, 25 June 2019.
Reposted with his generous permission.
“A Canadian anthropological approach to the study of
empire and the human condition.”
Sabotaging another
nation’s power grids, or blowing up industrial plants, are actual acts of war
under international law. The term “cyber-terrorism” as used in the title,
almost softens the impact of that fact. In recent months and weeks, the US has
been active – either by its own account, or according to target nations – in
new acts of war that use the digital realm in order to produce concrete effects
on the ground. Venezuela, which suffered debilitating power outages in March,
laid at least some of the blame on alleged cyber attacks by the US. The US
certainly possesses the means to engage in such cyber-warfare, and has actually
done so. Iran is a case in point. Not only has Iran allegedly been targeted in
recent days, but it was also targeted by Obama with the aid of Israel. This requires
that we review the case of the Stuxnet Worm.
Why does it matter that
we should be aware and informed about the Stuxnet Worm? What is Stuxnet, and
what can it do? Who has actually used it, and to what effect? What are the
consequences for all of us, now that Stuxnet has been unleashed worldwide?
Americans live under a
state which tells them that their country is “the target” of nefarious foreign
attackers that engage in cyber-terrorism or other cyber-crimes against the US.
They will rarely, if ever, be aware of the fact that it is their own country
which has committed the most dangerous and widespread cyber-terrorism – and
that as a result, Americans are now vulnerable to the very same computer
technologies that their country first deployed against others. This is yet
another instance of what others have critiqued as “American innocence”.
Zero Days (2016).
Written and directed
by Alex Gibney, Zero Days
(2016; see IMDB) is a documentary film that runs for just over
113 minutes. The film is briefly described on IMDB as follows: “A documentary focused on Stuxnet, a
piece of self-replicating computer malware that the U.S. and Israel unleashed
to destroy a key part of an Iranian nuclear facility, and which ultimately
spread beyond its intended target”.
(2016; see IMDB) is a documentary film that runs for just over
113 minutes. The film is briefly described on IMDB as follows: “A documentary focused on Stuxnet, a
piece of self-replicating computer malware that the U.S. and Israel unleashed
to destroy a key part of an Iranian nuclear facility, and which ultimately
spread beyond its intended target”.
Alex Gibney has made
several important and well-received documentaries, a number of which will be
reviewed on this site. He certainly is a prolific filmmaker, focusing on topics
that have generated the biggest headlines, or focusing on major personalities.
The fact that he is able to churn out such large documentaries in relatively
short order (showing that he must be working on another film even before finishing
the latest work), is a fact that has attracted some critical commentary,
especially when some see work such as Zero Days being little
more than a film version of the Wikipedia entry on Stuxnet.
For my part, I am quite
sceptical of Gibney’s political aims – at the very least, he is guilty of some
hypocrisy. While Gibney is proud to showcase the fact that he sought out leakers
for his Zero Days film, in order to tell us the secrets about
Stuxnet, he nonetheless smeared Julian Assange and WikiLeaks for doing the same
thing, only better, and on a wider range of topics. We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks
– a damning title by itself – was one of Gibney’s
previous films, which of course won high praise by the media in the US.
The fact that NPR has come out and positively publicized Zero
Days should be a warning that we view this film with some caution.
Otherwise, I will continue to view and review other films by Gibney, just as I
do with other filmmakers whose productions deserved criticism.
– a damning title by itself – was one of Gibney’s
previous films, which of course won high praise by the media in the US.
The fact that NPR has come out and positively publicized Zero
Days should be a warning that we view this film with some caution.
Otherwise, I will continue to view and review other films by Gibney, just as I
do with other filmmakers whose productions deserved criticism.
You can view a trailer
for Zero Days below.
The Sheriff is the Outlaw.
The film begins with an
extract from an Iranian state TV documentary that reenacts the Israeli
terrorist assassination of two nuclear scientists in Iran on 29 November 2010.
Voice-overs from the mainstream US media refer to the terrorism as “major
strategic sabotage”. The film accompanies the Iranian documentary’s action with
an Israeli speaker – an anonymous Mossad senior operative – silhouette only,
voice distorted electronically, speaking to us from the shadows about the
“nature of life” as being one where “evil” and “good” live “side by side”. He
continues by “explaining” that there is an “unbalanced” and “unequivalent”
(i.e., asymmetric) conflict between “democracies” that “play by the rules” –
the rules shown include the targeted murder of scientists – versus “entities”
that “think democracy is a joke”. Presumably terrorism is about making enemies
take democracy a little more seriously? In other words, the opening of the film
is appropriately sinister, cynical, and menacing.
There is also a certain
candour to the film as presented in the words of the Israeli Mossad speaker.
There is indeed an asymmetric battle. Had Iran attacked nuclear scientists on
the streets of Israel, the Western media would call it a terrorist attack,
and Iran would likely be bombed. Instead, Iran is just supposed to absorb
Western terrorism, like Americans tolerate rain or a windy afternoon. It is
somehow Iran’s natural duty to suffer us. There is also a candidly
twisted interpretation of “the rules”: Western powers get to invent their own
special rules, ones that are in direct violation of international law. This is
what is actually meant by the “rules-based international order” slogan one
hears from the mouths of Western leaders today. The sheriff is the outlaw. The
punishment is the crime.
