24.10.2001

Terrorists and the web

The events of September 11 have prompted a review of the feasibility of putting new, restrictive internet surveillance legislation onto the statute book.

The renewed hysteria emanated from the discovery of what former French defence ministry official Alexis Debat said ?seemed to be a codebook?, found on the person of Kamel Daoudi, an alleged islamic militant arrested here in Britain shortly after the terrorist attacks took place. Since being extradited to France, it unfolded, Daoudi had worked for a period in a cybercafe, and thus was inevitably accused of being the web-genius behind the whole operation. Allegedly, he was involved in planning for attacks on the US embassy in Paris.

The internet has cropped up repeatedly in the FBI?s investigation into the events of September 11. Mohammed Atta, whom the intelligence services assert was the ringleader of the Al Que?da cell responsible, reportedly demanded 24 hour internet access when arriving at a motel in Hollywood during August, and had in his luggage ?two laptops and a pile of CD-Roms?. Purportedly, he and an accomplice left in an angry mood upon rejection of this demand, gruffly mumbling ?you don?t understand - we are here on a mission?.

Dubious perhaps, but nevertheless, the ?codebook?, coupled with evidence that the internet may have played an important role in the terrorists? planning, prompted security services to concede that a complex and elaborate method of encryption had been used to exchange messages via the net. It was suggested that in all likelihood a sophisticated form of steganography was responsible, utilised in order to embed coded messages within audio and picture files, which could then be decoded using a special electronic key by terrorist operatives in the US. ?We have constructed a database of information on the ?DNA? make-up of millions of inappropriate images, and will use this to search for hidden messages?, boasted the US intelligence services last month. Over two million pornographic photographs later, however, the FBI were no closer to discovering the secret messages they sought. Despite enlisting the services of the Glasgow-based internet firm Iomart, US intelligence failed to uncover any hidden codes with direct reference to Al Que?da. ?It is well known that the internet is a means of communication for terrorist networks?, stated Iomart spokesman Phil Worms. It seems, however, that sophisticated encryption was not necessary on this occasion.

In fact, the Al Que?da terrorists did not use any form of encryption in their communications at all . Instead, seemingly unambiguous emails carrying a veiled meaning, eg, ?see you on September 11?? were used by the organisers to communicate with each other. Bearing in mind the unimaginable volume of information travelling on the web every second of the day, it would be almost impossible for such communications to be intercepted by bourgeois intelligence services, and, if they were, for their relevance to be appreciated prior to the event. Indeed, it would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack. On top of that, the Al Que?da operatives used their real names, in public web terminals, with frequent flier identifiers, in broad daylight. They became inconspicuous by remaining as conspicuous as possible.

As the e-economy has expanded, and capital has sought to amass profits and increase its turnover by moving into cyberspace, so has it become more vulnerable to attack. The United States, with its vast network of computer systems and increasing reliance on information technology, is the most vulnerable. Richard Clarke, special adviser to president Bush for cyberspace security, said last week: ?Our economy, our national defence, increasingly our way of life depends upon the operation - safe and secure - of critical infrastructures that in turn depend on cyberspace?. And thus, the state has drafted measures to ensure that it will remain ?safe and secure?.

These measures, however, go little way to actually protecting capital?s information systems, serving rather to monitor and censor the internet. Amongst the measures suggested is the creation of a secret ?code key? which could be used by state agencies to de-crypt private messages, without requiring any evidence or charge against the people involved. This would effectively give any government institution the power to read any email being sent by anyone, to anywhere. Others include the ability to censor material on the internet which is deemed ?unsuitable?. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a US-based liberal ?cyber-liberty? group, warned: ?[The Acts] would dramatically alter the civil liberties landscape through unnecessarily broad restrictions on free speech and privacy rights in the United States and abroad?.

Foreign secretary Jack Straw arrogantly denounced campaigners against stronger internet surveillance as a ?danger to the anti-terror fight? last week, insisting that any opposition to the state?s big brother aspirations is ?naive?. However, the pretence that the new ?RIP Act? would actually have prevented September 11 is thoroughly disingenuous. Of course it would not have given the state?s intelligence services any significant advantage in detecting the perpetrators of last month?s attacks on New York and Washington whatsoever. Rather, in the long term, it would give the security services a tighter grip over internet surveillance of ordinary people, as well as monitoring what material was made available online.

Yet this should not surprise us as communists. The ruling class have tried to constrict and control the information flow on many occasions in the past, whether by tapping phones, intercepting mail or censoring ?inflammatory? literature. The purpose of this new legislation is clear. For the ruling class, the internet is something anarchic and uncontrollable, extremely difficult to keep ?secure?. This stems, of course, from its conception during the cold war as a means to continue communications after a possible nuclear attack on the US. The web is specifically designed so that there exists no central body, no overriding mechanism, but many smaller components which network together and amalgamate to form a whole. The transition of this infrastructure into the public domain has caused problems for the censors and security services.

Hand in hand with the hastily drawn-up and draconian Anti-Terrorist Act, greater internet ?security? and surveillance could have serious consequences for democratic rights across the globe. Of course, such definitions as ?terrorist? and ?unsuitable material? could be applied to the organised left if the need ever arose. The internet has been an extremely useful tool for our politics, enabling us to reach millions with otherwise unattainable ease, instantaneously, with relatively little material cost. This very article will most likely reach more readers in cyberspace than it will in the print version, and costs both reader and publisher almost nothing to do so. Hence, when the class struggle intensifies, and the state comes under threat, it is entirely likely that the internet and its associated freedoms would come under severe attack by the ruling class.

It is vital, therefore, that we oppose vehemently any legislation which further encroaches upon our ?cyber-liberty?, and our ability to publish and organise online. Just as communists should oppose the anti-terrorism legislation drafted by Blunkett, so we should mobilise against any proposed bills which seek to increase state control in cyberspace. Such acts are fundamentally anti-working class, and moreover do nothing to prevent further atrocities, such as those committed last month.

James Bull