May 2 and 4 blog discussion question

1) Does the Washington Post article indicate that the United States has learned the lessons about the limits of cybernetic warfare or cybernetic "counter-insurgency" as discussed at the conclusion of Bousquet?

I would say yes rather than no to the first question, because the US military involvement in Vietnam should have learned from their failures particularly the strategies toward counter-insurgency and the technologies that they have used during the counter-insurgent operations there. I am quite optimist that the US military new plan of the ‘gated communities” will work because the US military is going to use more concrete strategy and more advanced technologies in the “gate communities’ to counter-insurgent operations in the war-oriented areas of Iraq.

2) If the United States is still in Iraq 30 years from now (2037), and has turned over surveillance and shooting of curfew violators in Baghdad to autonomous robots (mentioned in the BBC article), what would be the ethical and moral implications of this form of mid-21st century cybernetic counter-insurgency?

I think using the autonomous robots for encountering terrorist attacks as well as for the surveillance of the society is ethnically good, because each individual human being, to my point of view, has much more value than a human made robot, which is under the control of human itself. For example, if a soldier gets killed, no matter whether American or Iraqi Army, the dead of this particular individual will bring family ties suffrage and the family, friends, and relatives loose a human soul. But, nothing will happen if the tough duty of this soldier can be done by robot, not one will mourn for the robot if it gets destroyed. But I would suggest that the autonomous robots should be used only for military operations against terrorists, but on to take publics’ places of doing things.

Blog Assignment # 4

I really don’t know what does the “computer Fraud and Abuse Act” for unauthorized access in the United States says about the foreign hackers like Gary Mckinnon. If the act indicates that foreign hackers face the same charges in the U.S. then I think the hacker should be extradited. Since the United Kingdom is one of the Unites states’ allies. I think I would be better if this problem could be solved with the government of the United Kingdom, and should get the permission whether the hacker should be faced charges in the United States or in his country of origin. But in any case, he should be faced computer criminal charge for his illegal hacking in the US Military side. This is what I think is pretty fair trail for the relationship of both sides.

Blog Discussion 2

Should "hactivists" actually cooperate with their respective national governments (as suggested by Milone), or should they develop technologies designed to secure the infrastructure from surveillance by any government, including their own?

I think it would be better if the hactivists can cooperate with the governments in order to prevent the cyber terrorist and criminal activities that will lead both to the infrastructure of the cyberspace as well as create threat and danger to civilians. Since more and more people, nowadays, are being involved in Internet businesses and activities, it is good for hactivists to jointly work with their governments to prevent illegal activities that are being carried out in the internet, both for their own safety as well as peoples’.

Is "hacktivism" a form of cyberpolitical participation that could support, or constrain, "democratization" in both the developed and developing worlds?

I think, it is not only a political involvement of hactivists to either support or constrain democratization, but also their involvement in the economic sphere. As we pointed out in the class the there two types of hackers; one that cooperates with any organization or government to secure their cyberspace, and one that penetrates through systems in order to get secret and valuable information.

The bad hackers are really big threat to any government or organization, because they might be hired by any terrorist organization or simply steel money through hacking in the Internet. Some hackers might work independently while others may work in-group pursuing their goals. Looking at both sides of hacktivism, I can say that good hackers are in support of democratization while the bad ones are on the opposite.

Political Culture of Cyberspace discussion!!!

Is the political culture of cyberspace inherently democratic and transnational in character, or is Beir correct when stating that "meaningful participation in transnational civil society-based networks and practices are not at all equally apportioned across geopolitical space" (806)? If Beir is correct, what does this mean for the role of the "political culture of cyberspace" in the Kyrgyz Republic and Central Asia more generally?

I would say that it is more transitional than democratic, because the political culture of cyberspace, as I think, depends on the regime of every state as our presenters had their case study on Iran and China. Thus, talking about the political culture of Kyrgyzstan and the rest of the Central Asian Republics, I would say each has its own ways of controlling the incoming and outgoing of information through internet in the country. Some have similar restrictions and some have relatively different cyberspace political culture.

I partially agree with what Bier talks about the cyber-culture and partially not. First, there should exist a freely functioning civil society in state where people can express their thoughts and feelings and can openly participant in the cyber-space without any restrictions. Second, in non-democratic states, there is almost no place for such a freely functioning civil society, which basically means that people’s rights on cyber-space are restricted as are discussed in the following paragraphs.

I would say that even in better democratic states, Internet information is being checked mainly due to the national security issues, but in non-democratic states, such as authoritarian and totalitarian; Internet users are being checked not only for security reason, but also for spreading propaganda against regime ideologies that will eventually lead to toppling of the regime.

Coming back to the Central Asia, we can say that the more the society gets democratic, and more restrictions on Internet users decline. For example, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are considered as authoritarian countries, which mean that in terms of cyber-politics, they have a great sense of Internet censorship in their countries. Basically, they limited those internal and external Internet websites that are threat to the break down of the regime and vis a versa.

On the other hand, if we look at the Kyrgyz Republic as well as Kazakhstan, they are to some extent democratic states, because they allow oppositions to speak and mobilize supporters. Thus, the tendency toward Internet restrictions is less, but they are, I assume, more politicized both by the government and opposition parties. Thus, it could the same for any other non-democratic society.

Light of Life

http://www.light-of-life.com/

Center For the Study of Islam and Democracy

http://www.csidonline.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

Global Terrorism Analysis

http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/index.php

Social Research Centre American University Central Asia

http://src.auca.kg/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=52

Encyclopedia of Technical Terms

http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/

Information Centre

http://azimiwebspace.blogspot.com/

My Political Violence & Terrorism Course Link

http://faculty.roosevelt.edu/erickson/kg/icp349/

My Cyber-politics Course Link

http://faculty.roosevelt.edu/erickson/kg/icp351/