Governments don’t understand cyber warfare. We need hackers | Rodrigo Bijou


In 2008, Burhan Hassan, age 17, boarded a flight from Minneapolis to the Horn of Africa. And while Burhan was the youngest recruit, he was not alone. Al-Shabaab managed to recruit
over two dozen young men in their late teens and early 20s with a heavy presence
on social media platforms like Facebook. With the Internet and other technologies, they’ve changed our everyday lives, but they’ve also changed
recruitment, radicalization and the front lines of conflict today. What about the links connecting Twitter, Google and protesters
fighting for democracy? These numbers represent
Google’s public DNS servers, effectively the only
digital border crossing protesters had and could use to communicate with each other,
to reach the outside world and to spread viral awareness of what was happening
in their own country. Today, conflict is essentially borderless. If there are bounds to conflict today, they’re bound by digital,
not physical geography. And under all this is a vacuum of power where non-state actors, individuals
and private organizations have the advantage over slow, outdated
military and intelligence agencies. And this is because,
in the digital age of conflict, there exists a feedback loop where new technologies,
platforms like the ones I mentioned, and more disruptive ones, can be adapted, learned, and deployed
by individuals and organizations faster than governments can react. To understand the pace
of our own government thinking on this, I like to turn to something aptly named the Worldwide Threat Assessment, where every year the Director
of National Intelligence in the US looks at the global threat landscape, and he says, “These are the threats,
these are the details, and this is how we rank them.” In 2007, there was absolutely
no mention of cyber security. It took until 2011,
when it came at the end, where other things, like West
African drug trafficking, took precedence. In 2012, it crept up, still behind things
like terrorism and proliferation. In 2013, it became the top threat, in 2014 and for the foreseeable future. What things like that show us is that there is
a fundamental inability today on the part of governments
to adapt and learn in digital conflict, where conflict can be immaterial,
borderless, often wholly untraceable. And conflict isn’t just online to offline,
as we see with terrorist radicalization, but it goes the other way as well. We all know the horrible events
that unfolded in Paris this year with the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks. What an individual hacker or a small group
of anonymous individuals did was enter those social media conversations
that so many of us took part in. #JeSuisCharlie. On Facebook, on Twitter, on Google, all sorts of places where millions
of people, myself included, were talking about the events and saw images like this, the emotional, poignant image of a baby
with “Je suis Charlie” on its wrist. And this turned into a weapon. What the hackers did
was weaponize this image, where unsuspecting victims, like all of us in those conversations, saw this image, downloaded it but it was embedded with malware. And so when you downloaded this image, it hacked your system. It took six days to deploy
a global malware campaign. The divide between physical
and digital domains today ceases to exist, where we have offline attacks
like those in Paris appropriated for online hacks. And it goes the other way as well,
with recruitment. We see online radicalization of teens, who can then be deployed globally
for offline terrorist attacks. With all of this, we see that there’s
a new 21st century battle brewing, and governments
don’t necessarily take a part. So in another case,
Anonymous vs. Los Zetas. In early September 2011 in Mexico, Los Zetas, one of the most
powerful drug cartels, hung two bloggers with a sign that said, “This is what will happen
to all Internet busybodies.” A week later, they beheaded a young girl. They severed her head,
put it on top of her computer with a similar note. And taking the digital counteroffensive because governments couldn’t even
understand what was going on or act, Anonymous, a group we might not associate
as the most positive force in the world, took action, not in cyber attacks, but threatening
information to be free. On social media, they said, “We will release information that ties prosecutors and governors
to corrupt drug deals with the cartel.” And escalating that conflict, Los Zetas said, “We will kill 10 people
for every bit of information you release.” And so it ended there because
it would become too gruesome to continue. But what was powerful about this was that anonymous individuals, not federal policia,
not military, not politicians, could strike fear deep into the heart of one of the most powerful,
violent organizations in the world. And so we live in an era that lacks the clarity
of the past in conflict, in who we’re fighting,
in the motivations behind attacks, in the tools and techniques used, and how quickly they evolve. And the question still remains: what can individuals,
organizations and governments do? For answers to these questions,
it starts with individuals, and I think peer-to-peer security
is the answer. Those people in relationships
that bought over teens online, we can do that with peer-to-peer security. Individuals have more power
than ever before to affect national
and international security. And we can create those positive
peer-to-peer relationships on and offline, we can support and educate the next
generation of hackers, like myself, instead of saying, “You can either be
a criminal or join the NSA.” That matters today. And it’s not just individuals —
it’s organizations, corporations even. They have an advantage
to act across more borders, more effectively and more rapidly
than governments can, and there’s a set
of real incentives there. It’s profitable and valuable to be seen as trustworthy
in the digital age, and will only be more so
in future generations to come. But we still can’t ignore government, because that’s who we turn to
for collective action to keep us safe and secure. But we see where that’s gotten us so far, where there’s an inability to adapt
and learn in digital conflict, where at the highest levels of leadership, the Director of the CIA,
Secretary of Defense, they say, “Cyber Pearl Harbor will happen.”
“Cyber 9/11 is imminent.” But this only makes us
more fearful, not more secure. By banning encryption in favor
of mass surveillance and mass hacking, sure, GCHQ and the NSA can spy on you. But that doesn’t mean
that they’re the only ones that can. Capabilities are cheap, even free. Technical ability
is rising around the world, and individuals and small groups
have the advantage. So today it might just be
the NSA and GCHQ, but who’s to say that the Chinese
can’t find that backdoor? Or in another generation,
some kid in his basement in Estonia? And so I would say that it’s
not what governments can do, it’s that they can’t. Governments today
need to give up power and control in order to help make us more secure. Giving up mass surveillance and hacking
and instead fixing those backdoors means that, yeah, they can’t spy on us, but neither can the Chinese or that hacker in Estonia
a generation from now. And government support
for technologies like Tor and Bitcoin mean giving up control, but it means that developers, translators,
anybody with an Internet connection, in countries like Cuba, Iran and China,
can sell their skills, their products, in the global marketplace, but more importantly sell their ideas, show us what’s happening
in their own countries. And so it should be not fearful, it should be inspiring
to the same governments that fought for civil rights,
free speech and democracy in the great wars of the last century, that today, for the first time
in human history, we have a technical opportunity to make billions of people
safer around the world that we’ve never had before
in human history. It should be inspiring. (Applause)




Comments
  1. Doesn't the government already train people to be, and hire hackers?

    I mean, a whole section of our military specializes in hacking and online tracking.

  2. Governments shouldn't infiltrate in social media. It should be a free space, it is already becoming a political correct place. What a shame, there is no freedom of speech, as much as I want to believe in it we're being monitored.
    I guess people will create new spaces to flee from the government.

  3. Criminal organizations/states such as Chinese Communist Party (CCP) et al do not care about Democracy or Human Rights, etc. to begin with. They indeed are not interested in what other people think at all. (ck it out)

  4. I can't agree more, the real hackers. The ones who are good are the ones who you don't see or don't expect it from. The ones who see the machines from a different point of view. I myself as ICT student see that to. Our teachers sometimes don't even understand us, this can be dangerous but also a Opportunity. 🙂 use it for good, and before they find out they can do something bad to.

  5. Are you talking about the countless killed by terrorists in Pakistan (over 50k killed by drone and terrorist attacks since 2007) and Indonesia and other Muslim countries or your studies only include false flags by mossad and cia in france and non muslim countries?

  6. He dilutes his point by unnecessarily repeating himself. He basicly only needed 5 sentences. Governments should stop mass surveillance to make people safer? Tough sell.

  7. You can easily broaden that statement by saying that "Governments don't normally understand ANYTHING that's under 50 years old."

    It's as easy as saying: "Well, teachers are likely underpaid given their importance in the next generations lives."

    Sure.

    But let's broaden that one as well and say "Basically, finance, sales, lawyers and doctors are all just overly paid professions, while the vast majority of everything else is grossly underpaid for its importance."

  8. It is too bad this presentation assumed Governments are the manipulators when the Corporations are the ones manipulating the Governments. It is the Corporations who want to be able to communicate securely in order to protect their profit potential. It is the Military Industrial Complex that wants to monitor and establish simulation baselines for human behaviors.

    Although I agree with the premise, that we are sitting on the technological ability to connect all human beings on the planet together in global symbiosis, the contextual data seems like support for propaganda and the solution seems to be contrary to the goals of those it panders to.

    Corporate deployment of for profit communication sharing is not the answer. It is the reason we are in this mess. Governments are the only thing currently preventing full corporate control over the entire internet. And for the time being we need that stability. We cannot allow corporate profit margins to determine who has access to education and information on the internet. We must connect every human on the planet and supply the means for that connection as a function of the global human cost of living. It must be as necessary as food and water before control is relinquished.

    We must all have the same voice before choices can be made that affect us on a global level. This must come to be, but it will never come to be in the hands of a profit-driven corporate environment. It will cost resources to make it happen, there will never, and should never, be a profit-driven motive for sharing information and ideas.

  9. The government does understand cyber warfare as it has been a lead developer in the cyber warfare arms race. However that lead is shrinking fast.

    The government has not wanted to acknowledge its role in cyber warfare. From the humble beginnings in the early 70's of CIA electrical engineers being able to watch a person's monitor from a van 600 feet away without physical connection and keystroke logging, to the 80's setting up the early hacker groups and the Cal Poly computer science department creating the first worm which later developed into attacks like Stuxnet used on the Iranian nuclear facility by the US. The government started the cyber warfare arms race, the problem is unlike traditional warfare and arms dealing, the US government does not have the same level of barriers of entry into cyber warfare and is quickly becoming blindsided by new developments from other rival nations (some of them are even considered political allies, but cyber rivals) and independent groups.

    The surveillance and invasion of privacy has been ongoing for decades, the Arab Spring of 2011 has brought on a new sense of urgency as the Internet was finally seen as the ability to facilitate regime change. This was a big wake up call not to the Arab states as much as it was a bigger concern to the leading democracies like the US, UK, and India as well as other consolidated seats of power like China and Russia. The first steps have been to try and crack down and take control of the Internet, but the opposite effect has been happening and the signal to noise ratio has been getting worse.

    There are more players in the battlefield, the cyber battle lines have become even more confusing than the Syrian conflict, and the illusion of security is just like the illusion of privacy; merely an illusion.

  10. I like these talks, but after hearing about how TED treats their guest speakers and their entire process of recruiting speakers to the point where they get to the stage is an absolute gong-show. You pretty much sign 1 week of your life on the dotted line just to get 15 minutes of fame.

  11. He can't really present a soultion like this in a atmosphere that is always changing. His proposal seems to think in a generation the rules will be the same. Backdoors can't be do easily borded up since there is always another back door or variable. This is the kinda guy that thinks an complicated problem can be solved with one change.

  12. Good luck trying to get government to give up any power or control. Here in the US, government just gobbled up more power by implementing "net neutrality" rules that restrict the open internet and ban people from voluntarily coming to commercial arrangements that the government doesn't like. You're right that government has failed, but it's defenders only use that as an excuse to push for bigger government.

  13. Who's in charge of government? Old people. What do old people know about technology? Nothing. The first step in finding a solution is recognizing the problem.

  14. This speech sucks, he's just rambling. He never clarifies the thesis of the speech. P2P and keeping encryption secure is going to help us deal with terrorist recruitment how? Are private entities like Anonymous supposed to take on the armed strength of the Zetas and ISIS and not governments? Why do we expect corporations to keep consumer info safe when they don't even do that now?

  15. If you really want to enlighten yourself on exactly how this potentially wonderful world of ours actually works then look into the insights and wisdom of a certain individual named Alan Watt (he has a scottish accent, do not confuse him with Alan Watts)

  16. 2:35 Snowden's revelations about how much USA was spying on everyone: 2013
    That year, cyber-warfare went straight to the top of USA's "threat' list.
    What a coincidence.

    It's like… shining a light on cockroaches and they skatter, then they immediately put lights onto their threat list as #1.

  17. i hope US ppl and every white realize it was all about chinese.
    chinese stole all your money at least 20 years .
    chinese , hk even tw.

  18. In this need-of-the-hour talk, ethical hacker Rodrigo Bijou asserts the importance of how the modern Governments fail to understand the ever-growing cyber-terrorism across the world. Instead of just blaming, he also gives very practical solution how to overcome this trouble with the use of technology. A very informative, evocative and most importantly timely talk. Highly recommended.

  19. What a terrible talk that said nothing. Peer to peer and allowing random NSAs to conduct security action online? Didn't he provide an example of Anonymous doing that and the result was the threat of real people dying? Who is going to end up paying the price when that small non-state actor does the wrong thing and multiple people die as a result? People will come out of the shadows blaming the government's inaction.
    There are loads more questions that were not answered, and his suggestion was weak. Great job of stating the government can't protect us and then saying that when someone else tries to then they'll probably wind up dead.

  20. "Intelligence" agencies that after 10 years have not noticed that "Cyber" has not really caught up as a description of Internet, of computer, of network based…

  21. I like the message but his delivery is distracting. This guy needs to cut the crap and just present the facts instead of stumbling over the emotional appeal and buzzwords.

    They didn't spread "viral awareness"… they simply spread awareness. Very forced and incorrect use of the buzzword "viral".

    Conflicts are STILL very much bound by geographic borders which is precisely WHY the message is UNBOUND by digital borders.

    "In future generations to come." lol Moving forward… to the future… LOLOL

    Talking about governments giving up power and control at a TED Talk… LMFAO!!! I'm surprised he wasn't beheaded right there.

    Governments DID NOT fight for civil rights and freedom. They directly oppressed those things. THAT'S WHY THERE WAS A MOVEMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!

    This guy is a fucking idiot.

  22. I'm more worried about company data collecting and survelliance than government mass survelliance and data collecting.

  23. What an idiot. Why keep mentioning Chinese? Every country tries to spy on every other country. Friend of foe. That's the spy game. He makes it sound like US is the victim. US probably spies more spying than any other because US has the most technical knowledge. NSA was spying on German and Japanese prime minister's cell phone, god sakes.

  24. 4:45 anonymous threatens to release information. anonymous is ran and organized by the FBI for the most part ever since it arrested and adopted the original (rebellious members) that hung out on 4chan. that was back in 2010-2011. CIA organizes and arms ISIS and FBI (different wing) also stages terrorist attacks as well as works with DEA to smuggle drugs and blackmail/bribe politicians.

    not only is our government inept at cyber warfare, they are often the people behind the terrorists within warfare. the biggest threat to the common american's security is not a muslim, it is the secret services that operate illegally and above the law within our own borders. they have government sanction to do as they please and answer to nobody. and they are willing to kill innocent people to keep their activities secret.

  25. The problem is that, "security" isnt the big issue in todays world.
    You are being spied uppon in order to advertise directly to you, and in case of Martial law, they will know exactly whos door to kick down.

    Also, if they didnt control the internet, restrict it, and close sites down they dont like, then the biggest conspiracy of all times would be accessable for anyone with a half whit in finding such things.
    A conspiracy they have killed, silenced and closed down entire corporations to keep.

    In this world, that is owned and run by a network of interconnected mega cartels, we will never truely have privacy, because they are paranoid and they know that if we find out, the world will see a mass rebellion against everything that is normal day to day business.

    Sadly, young people have been conditioned to oppose conspiracy theories, because they fear being ridiculed, and everyone is programmed to ridicule a conspiracy "nut".
    Meanwhile people get sick from things that only since the year 2000 was an issue. 90% of people have barely enough money to survive, while 9% have abundance, and the last 1% has 2-3 times as much as the other 99% conbined. A new war is started before other wars end. the only objective of any of the wars has a 3 letter reason -> G.O.D (Gold, Oil, Drugs).
    The world Runs on ancient outdated and poluting technology (coal, gas and oil), while alternative sources are much more effective, safe and doesnt destroy our planet.
    Holostic doctors, with alternative types of medical cures, that actually work, are being killed and staged as suicides.

    ETC ETC, the list goes on. The world is at a stage of World War 3 alert, which means that next year (2017), could be the beginning of bombs being thrown and the risk of Nuclear war. If humanity survives this war, then the next and last war, will be interstellar, which means they will unite the world to wage war on ETs. A war that is unjustified and we cannot win, which means they will suicide the human race for profits.

    So your little battles over facebook, twitter and small pointless problems dont consern me at all. they are childs play, and not even an interesting type of childs play.

    IF you want to fix the world with hacking. Then gather all your hacker buddies, and work together to abolish the millitary industrial complex, the illuminati, and take the federal banks and private banks hostage. Release all the secret information about the world To every TV, radio, News feed, youtube, twitch, etc etc. Make it impossible to shut down somehow, and then flee the area, to avoid getting taken down by the swat teams.

    There is a better world, that we can build from the ashes of this corrupt world. But first we hafto destroy the corrupt money hoarding, zinoist / fasist cartels, and wipe out all their evil creations. Only then can a peacefull, abondant and safe world be built, and we will finally be worthy of making first contact publicly with the alien races who are watching us.
    Dr Steven Greer explains this very well, Search on youtube:
    "Dr Steven Greer – Nov. 21, 2015 – How the Secret Government Works: The most Explosive Expose HD".

  26. lolwut? 5:30 about the drug cartel… Anonymous didn't strike fear into their hearts, they laughed at Anonymous and showed how impotent they are in the real world…

  27. pls someone can teach me the basics of hacking cause I want to join I don't know governments which hire white hats hacker(search the meaning)pls(And I want to know how hack cause I want to help people online)

  28. why american People always think to right themselves.I'm sure that After a few year later everybody will say all of this war reason is America

  29. People turn to fall into the hands of scammers due to flawless hacker write ups (adverts) i was once a victim, i know this too well, so unfortunate…Well, let me cut to the chase, Pavel Novak carried out a job for me just once and I am impressed. Let it be known that i took timeout to publish this review about him without him asking because of his flawless delivery, honesty and hard work, won’t say for sure the service he offered me due to security reasons, all i know is that he offers the following services below;
    Cellphone hacks(audio calls, video calls, text messages, etc.)Application hacks(whatsapp, instagram, emails, facebook, imo, snapchat, kik etc.)Website hacks and many more which i can’t say here, below is his address 
    [email protected]
    You can call or chat him up on google hangout.

  30. This is the new reform for an effecient democracy.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JdTeZBHFAbXuAiU_n4FEY43Z9BMLLmR8/view?usp=drivesdk

  31. Regarding the giving up of control by governments, the opposite is happening… More surveillance, more walls, more power to intelligence agencies. How do you explain that?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *