On a Slippery Road in the Name of National Security

Two very important things happened at the recently concluded Cocon 2013. Not surprisingly, the media missed these, in favor of more "mainstream" news focusing on the celebrities and visible initiatives.

1. The Deputy National Security Advisor, Sh. Nehchal Sandhu gave a largely statistics & routine talk with the notable exception of a superb pronouncement:
   

   "We will not go down that road" 

   He was referring to the recent events surrounding NSA's surveillance and its fallout in the US (civil rights outrage) and in the rest of the world (Brazil, anyone?), including India (such as new guidelines on email usage, etc.). This statement was made to convey that the Indian Government would not indulge in the kind of tactics that NSA and FBI are being accused of.
   
   Why is this important? It portrays a commitment from the Government to act with a level of wisdom and maturity that has been hard to find recently not just here, but in most parts of the world.
   
   
2. A few speakers talked about the Government's collaboration with the hacker community. One of the talks included an unapologetic response to the criticism of this year's takedown of a malware's C&C Server at this year's nullcon -- announcing a new era of Government - Community partnership.
   
   On the sidelines of this talk was a much more sinister discussion. That some parts of the Government might be willing to take hackers for hire -- for ostensibly National Security engagements.
   
   On the face of it, it should not cause any concern, right? Not until you understand the implications, subtle and otherwise. How will this relationship begin, what pitstops will it make and how far will it go?
   An example: LulzSec (ex-)leader cooperating with the FBI.
   Another: Desi hackers join Indian Cyber Army. In this, there is even a mention of a lawyer wanting to change the IT Act to provide protection for "patriotic stealth operations". Of course, they might be talking about "usual" hiring of infosec professionals in cyber-defense positions... but there is enough to indicate otherwise too.
   
   There are enough rumours and murmurs on whole truckloads of East European hackers being allowed to flourish in the fond hope that they will provide the necessary "air" cover (and perhaps, tactical support) to their governments when push comes to shove in cyberwars. Are we talking about going down that route?
   
   National Security as a justification to do things that you wouldn't otherwise do is a very slippery slope. Once you start the journey, you have no control on the speed, direction or the destination. This is a route that argues that the means justify the ends. No doubt there will be people who argue that when our adversaries do it, we must do it too.
   
   However, I hope that saner voices such as Sh. Sandhu's will prevail.

On a different note, I do hope that our above-board educational hacker groups (such as garage4hackers) make every effort not to tip and fall into the wrong category. A few beers, some boasting and a vulnerable target are all the ingredients that enthusiastic young blood needs to cross the line. There are always rationalizations that can be made after the fact. Including misplaced patriotism.

I am not a patriot

There. I said it. Could have put it differently, but that wouldn't send the message across well enough. It doesn't mean that I will shy away from my duty when needed or begin seditious activities. Just that I believe it is a flawed concept.

So why ain't I a patriot?

Patriotism is an emotion founded upon a very artificial and flawed concept of a country. As with all emotions, it often defies logic and hinders rational approaches. Consider this. We are already know that in this day and age, cultural, religious and linguistic identities are hardly the primary reasons to create or sustain a country. Granted, there are exceptions but they are just that. Similarly, unlike a few hundred years ago, grabbing territory for resources is also no longer a viable and sustainable reason. So we can safely say that countries and their boundaries are not primarily based on claims for valuable resources. Quite the opposite, in fact. If we remove the concept of a country from the table, many resource-based territorial disputes become easier to resolve.

So what then, are the main reasons (that remain) to define a country?

• Administrative convenience – pretty much along the same lines as states, districts, counties and provinces. It makes administration of a geographical unit simpler by defining a scope for the corresponding governments (whose basis, incidentally, is not specifically that of a country, but a more general concept of a region that is rightly linked and recognized as that of an administrative convenience).
• Facilitate broad and equitable representation of people in the administration. Though this is mainly applicable mainly to democracies, it can also be seen often in monarchies and dictatorships in one form or the other.

Once again, we see that these two can be achieved even if we sacrifice the concept of country at the altar of wisdom.

How is it then, that patriotism such a strong and as nearly unquestionable a virtue as any religious belief? Firstly, it provides a much needed identity and a sense of belonging to the masses – at the expense of differentiation from the neighbors. Unfortunately, this is both a blessing and a curse. A curse mainly because it becomes a basis to unreasonably foster hatred towards neighbors. Think of this. As an individual, when you have a dispute with a neighbor, family-member or a colleague whom you need to see nearly everyday – life becomes unbearable if you don't put a lid on hatred and find a closure to the dispute. You therefore look for that closure, often by finding a reasonable compromise. However, when it comes to two countries it is very different. It is impersonal and therefore not quite necessary to obtain closure personally. It is quite feasible for citizens to create and nurse hatred indefinitely towards a “country” and its people without having come across them personally even once in their life times. It is easy to grow up with the beliefs as well as teach children that our neighbors are not to be trusted. It is easy to make sweeping generalizations about whole nations and smile in triumph 'cuz no one in the audience will step up and counter your point.

So is there a way we can bid adieu to this concept? Perhaps. Perhaps not yet. There is a significant hurdle. It will only work if all countries and their people are willing to give up this concept nearly at once. Alternatively, groups of countries can begin to set the tone by opting to merge. No doubt it is easier said than done. Egos, the need for cultural identities (didn't I just say countries are not always a single-culture-bound?), and age-old prejudices are hard to overcome overnight. 


Yet there is hope. In that I shall take some solace.