Deterrence in cyberspace: different domain, different rules

Wednesday, 27 July 2016

By: Liam Nevill and Zoe Hawkins

In a society that’s now reliant on cyberspace for everyday life, and when everything from cars, electricity grids and dams to weapons systems is connected to a network, the potential effects of malicious or aggressive actions in cyberspace warrant some justified concern.

This paper examines the application of deterrence concepts to cyberspace, discusses cybersecurity implications for broader deterrence frameworks, and makes policy recommendations to enhance cybersecurity and strengthen broader deterrence postures.

Deterrence in cyberspace: different domain, different rules

7 Steps to a Perfectly Written Business Plan

7 Steps to a Perfectly Written Business Plan

Press Release by Malaysia Bar Council in relation to misuse of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (Malaysia)

Press Release by Malaysia Bar Council in relation to misuse of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (Malaysia) 

Misuse of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 to Stifle Freedom of Speech and Expression Must End

The Malaysian Bar is aghast at the decision of the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (“MCMC”) — pursuant to Sections 233 and 263(2) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (“CMA”) — to deny public access to The Malaysian Insider (“TMI”) online news portal indefinitely.

MCMC announced the decision in its statement dated 25 February 2016, without giving any specific reason.  However, it appears that MCMC has taken action against TMI because TMI allegedly published matters that have caused confusion.  MCMC has not identified the offending publication(s) by TMI that caused this purported confusion.

Communications and Multimedia Minister Datuk Seri Panglima Dr Mohd Salleh Tun Said Keruak has reportedly said that TMI has been blocked as one of the articles published by it “... quoted a statement that could cause confusion because it contradicts with official statements by MACC.  They don’t mention who the source is.  It could confuse the public.”[1]

Causing public confusion is not, and cannot be, an offence under Section 233 of the CMA.  MCMC’s reliance on Section 233 for its action against TMI is therefore without any basis, and   oppressive.  It is quite puzzling that anyone could consider causing public confusion to be an offence at all.  It is also rather demeaning and offensive to assume that Malaysians will be “confused” merely as a result of contradictory statements in the press, or because the source of press statements was not disclosed.

Moreover, MCMC cannot invoke Section 263(2) of the CMA for the purpose of barring public access to websites on unjustifiable grounds.  As a responsible regulator, MCMC must always act in accordance with the law and must not arrogate to itself powers that have not been conferred on it by Parliament.  The action taken by MCMC against TMI appears to be unsustainable in law.

The recent and emerging pattern of MCMC’s reliance on the CMA to bar access to websites is alarming.  It is seen as harassment and intimidation of the media, and targeting of contrary or dissenting voices in the public sphere.  In July 2015, the whistleblower website, Sarawak Report, was blocked for allegedly publishing unverified information relating to the Prime Minister.  Other websites such as Medium, Outsyed the Box, Tabunginsider, Jinggo Photopages, Din Turtle, Asia Sentinel and Malaysia Chronicle have also been blocked.[2]  The legality of MCMC’s action under the CMA in respect of these other websites also appears to be questionable.

The right to information, or the right to know, is implicit in the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression that belongs to every citizen, as enshrined in Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution.  Indeed, a true democracy envisages a meaningful right to know.[3]  The blocking of access to websites is a serious curtailment of the right to know, as it thwarts the flow or dissemination of information, thoughts and ideas.  This renders the constitutional guarantee in Article 10(1)(a) vacuous or meaningless.[4]

Further, a critical and complementary aspect of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression is contained in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:  “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

In this regard, the freedom of the press is integral to freedom of speech and expression,[5] and is regarded as a necessary derivative of the right to know.[6]  The media, whether publicly- or privately-owned, must be free to report on matters of public interest.  Press freedom encourages transparency, accountability and an open society.[7]  A free press is imperative to the credibility of any democratic system of government.

While it is recognised that the freedom of speech and expression is not absolute,[8] any restriction of this fundamental liberty cannot be founded on any arbitrary and unlawful exercise of power by the authorities.  This would be nothing less than a frontal assault on the rule of law.

The Malaysian Bar urges the MCMC to abide by the Federal Constitution, respect the rule of law and immediately withdraw the prohibition of public access to the TMI online news portal.

Steven Thiru
President
Malaysian Bar

1 March 2016

__________________________________________________________________

[1] “Minister justifies TMI block, says due to contradictory report on MACC panel”, Malay Mail Online, 26 February 2016.

[2] (a) “Minister defends blocking medium.com, says it broke the law”, Malaysiakini, 4 February 2016. 
     (b) “Four more websites blocked by MCMC”, Malaysiakini, 28 January 2016. 
     (c) “Putrajaya blocks blogs that published leaked Tabung Haji letters”, The Malaysian Insider, 28 January 2016.
     (d) “‘Years of work gone’ after MCMC blocks freelance journo’s site”, Malaysiakini, 28 January 2016.
     (e) “Putrajaya blocks another news site critical of Najib”, Malaysiakini, 21 January 2016.
     (f) “Malaysia Chronicle website blocked”, The Malaysian Insider, 24 October 2015.

[3] Justice JS Verma, “Freedom of Expression.”  World of All Human Rights , Soli J. Sorabjee — A Festschrift.  Ed. RN Trivedi. Universal Law Publishing Co Pvt Ltd, 2015, p.18.

[4] Ibid, p.18.

[5] Bennet Coleman v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106.

[6] Justice JS Verma, op cit, pp.18-19.

[7] Ibid, p.19.

[8] Article 10(2)(a), Federal Constitution.

President Obama’s Cybersecurity Plan

On May 29 President Barack Obama introduced his administration’s new report on cybersecurity in the United States entitled Cyberspace Policy Review: Assuring a Trusted and Resilient Information and Communications Infrastructure.

In his speech, the president pointed out that shortly after taking office he directed the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council to thoroughly review the federal government's efforts “to defend our information and communications infrastructure” and to recommend improvements. He mentioned that National Security Council Acting Senior Director for Cyberspace Melissa Hathaway led the review team, and that the 60-day review included input from industry, academia, civil liberty and privacy advocates, every level and branch of government, Congress, and other advisers — even input from “international partners.”

To address the review’s findings, the president has called for some changes, the most visible of which is the president’s creation of a new White House office to be led by the “Cybersecurity Coordinator.” The coordinator will be a member of both the National Security Staff and the National Economic Council. As of this writing, the Cybersecurity Coordinator had not yet been named.

President Obama’s speech was filled with vague promises to “develop a new comprehensive strategy to secure America's … networks,” to “work with all the key players,” to “strengthen … public/private partnerships,” to “invest in cutting edge research and development,” and to “begin a national campaign to promote cybersecurity awareness and digital literacy.” The federal government will supposedly do all of this while remaining “open and transparent.” The president also vowed not to dictate security standards to private companies and not to monitor private sector networks or Internet traffic. He promised that “we will preserve and protect the personal privacy and civil liberties that we cherish as Americans.”

These aren’t going to be easy promises to fulfill, and perhaps it would be better if some weren’t fulfilled at all. President Obama said that the promotion of cybersecurity awareness and digital literacy will include “a new commitment to education in math and science, and historic investments in science and research and development.” Apparently we can count on the federal government becoming more involved in — and thus more in control of — education, and we can look forward to our taxpayer dollars being "invested" in research and development that private enterprise should be able to do more cost effectively. (NASA itself is turning to private companies to make space exploration more affordable; see details in our May 27 “Obama Names Bolden for NASA.”)

Regarding openness and transparency, these are not the words to describe how the government handles national security, and protecting cyberspace certainly impacts national security. See our April 19 “Obama Supports Tapping Your Phone & Internet” for just how strongly the president believes that “the United States must sometimes carry out intelligence operations and protect information that is classified for purposes of national security,” even when that involves keeping classified the extent of federal surveillance of law-abiding Americans.

As for not monitoring private-sector networks or the Internet while supposedly preserving personal privacy and civil liberties, our aforementioned “Obama Supports Tapping Your Phone & Internet” notes that the National Security Agency under Obama has been conducting illegal snooping entailing “millions of [phone] calls and e-mail messages.” In this light, the president’s promises ring hollow.

This brings to mind that in March Rod A. Beckstrom, then-director of the National Cyber Security Center, resigned his post to protest lack of funding and the National Security Agency’s continued grab for power over federal cybersecurity matters. The National Cyber Security Center was established to coordinate security operations among various intelligence agencies, but Beckstrom said the NSA was attempting to bring his group under its control. The Washington Post on March 10 quoted Beckstrom as saying, “It is very important that there be independence for the [center], and that it be able to carry out its role.”

It will be interesting to see what role the National Security Agency plays in President Obama’s brave new cyberworld.

Written by Steven J. DuBord
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/computers/1188

Digital Britain Report released on 16 June

The Digital Britain Report aims to be a guidepath for how Britain can sustain its position as a leading digital economy and society.



Check out the BBC news for details:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8103351.stm

The Digital Britain Report could be downloaded from the link below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/16_06_09digitalbritain.pdf

FaceBook information be grounds for school suspension?

This is the news article from USA.

The internet often seems like a world of its own, separated from the realities and rules of everyday life. Yet the internet world and reality are beginning to increasingly collide. School districts across the country have begun to punish students for the material that they publish online. Schools are correct for punishing students for online activities like character defamation of teachers and posting pictures of themselves engaging in illegal activities. Schools must teach students the hard way that wrong actions should be punished no matter where they occur.

Boundary
In 2007, a girl was suspended and placed into a lower level class after creating a Facebook group that declared that her teacher was "the worst person ever." The school viewed the group as a personal attack against the teacher and labeled it as cyber-bullying despite the lack of threats or profanity used on the group’s page. The student sued the school claiming that she was expressing her freedom of speech and that she created the group off school property and not during school hours.

This raises the issue, what is the extent of a school system’s control over student free speech? Currently, there are no Supreme Court cases declaring the boundaries of schools’ control over free speech on the internet, which historically speaking is a relatively new form of communication and expression.

A school’s ability to limit their students’ freedom of speech should be very restricted. Students have a right to express their feelings about the school, and the school should not interfere or punish the students for such expression. It is not possible for a school to have a vast and omnipotent control of what students post on the internet about themselves or others, and rightly so.

The boundaries of school control should be limited to and only to that of the school. There is no reason for schools to attempt to regulate what is clearly out of their scope of practice unless material posted online poses a direct threat to students or occurs on school property.
A school does not have jurisdiction about what goes on outside of school. Schools are not agents of the law. If a teacher does not like what someone posts online, they should go through legal channels to easily solve an often all too over complicated problem. Allow for the legal system to do what it does best which at the same time removes the biased and unbalanced enforcement of school policies and the issue of where the school’s boundaries of enforcement lie.

Article from http://rmtide.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=481&Itemid=1

Malaysia Call For Law To Censor Pornograhic Websites

8 May-The Malaysia Crime Prevention Foundation called on the government to draft a law to censor pornographic websites. Its vice-chairman, Tan Sri Lee lam Thye said the law was not to prevent Internet technology from entering the country, but more on preventing the inflow of pornographic materials from becoming more rampant. (http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=413209)

It would be interesting to see how the Malaysia government impose law to tackle the issue of pornographic as to prevent the inflow of pornographic materials from world wide web requires extreme measures. Would they put a burden on the ISP or the private individuals?

If the main concern is on the teenagers, shouldn't the parents/guardians be responsible for the parental control?

I would suggest that there are 2 main issues that need to be prioritised:
i) public access to adult sites such as cyber cafe;
ii) child pornographic

I have seen people gaining access to cyber cafe and this should be curbed. On the other hand, child pornographic should never been allowed. The UK has done a great job in tackling child pornographic whereby many were arrested and charged for distributing and browsing the child pornographic and it would be great if the Malaysia government could do the same.