Thank you to all the delegates, conference speakers, and the USNA midshipmen, facutly, staff, and administration for making this year's conference the best yet!
Make sure to keep checking the Facebook page here to see all of the photos once they are uploaded
Hope everyone had a safe and easy journey home!
Good luck and best wishes,
NAFAC 2011
Friday, April 15, 2011
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 6-Final Thoughts
Roundtable 6 came up with a few conclusions over the conference’s five discussion times. After debating the government’s role in the global technology market, we decided the government should take a hands off approach. Government intervention only increases the role of lobbyists and forces the United States to use technology that might not be in its best interest. Another key issue discussed was the benefits and disadvantages of the “Internet Age”. Benefits included interconnectedness and the speed, access, and wsealth of information. The major disadvantage discussed was the disconnect between people. As more and more technology is created, person to person interaction drastically increases. We decided people need a good balance of both technology and personal interaction. One of our most interesting discussions involved mobile banking and its potential to bring the developing world out of poverty. Issues also discussed were cloud computing, rare earth metals, and the problems that come with scarcity and abundance.
Our roundtable came up with a few suggestions for future roundtable discussions. While I would not make it mandatory, I would definitely provide all roundtable members with their fellow delegate’s papers before beginning discussion. If our roundtable’s delegates had been able to read each other’s papers before the discussions, we would have spent less time overviewing and more time in deep, meaningful discussion. Another flaw of our roundtable was the amount of time we spent on each topic. I felt we jumped from topic to topic too quickly, thus limiting the depth of our conversations. While this did allow us to discuss a wide range of topics, I think spending more time on less topics might have been more beneficial.
Overall I thought our roundtable ran smoothly. Moderator Rishi Shah did a good job at engaging all the delegates and was open to advice on discussion topics and group events. The delegates interacted well with each other and respected each other’s opinions. NAFAC 2011 was a great success and many of the delegates from roundtable 6 are already planning to return for next year’s conference .
Our roundtable came up with a few suggestions for future roundtable discussions. While I would not make it mandatory, I would definitely provide all roundtable members with their fellow delegate’s papers before beginning discussion. If our roundtable’s delegates had been able to read each other’s papers before the discussions, we would have spent less time overviewing and more time in deep, meaningful discussion. Another flaw of our roundtable was the amount of time we spent on each topic. I felt we jumped from topic to topic too quickly, thus limiting the depth of our conversations. While this did allow us to discuss a wide range of topics, I think spending more time on less topics might have been more beneficial.
Overall I thought our roundtable ran smoothly. Moderator Rishi Shah did a good job at engaging all the delegates and was open to advice on discussion topics and group events. The delegates interacted well with each other and respected each other’s opinions. NAFAC 2011 was a great success and many of the delegates from roundtable 6 are already planning to return for next year’s conference .
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 6-Thursday
On the final day of NAFAC, roundtable 6 discussed the other delegate papers. Nick Deluca presented his thoughts on rare earth elements and the problems China’s current domination of the market pose. Sam Tan argued abundance of materials breaks more things than scarcity and asked if we should create artificial scarcity to regulate the economy. He closed by stating despite our technological advances, time and talent will always be scarce.
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 6-Wednesday
On the second day of NAFAC, roundtable 6 discussed Benjamin Riesser’s (University of North Carolina – Greensboro) paper on cloud computing. In it, Ben proposed that IT scarcity will not be an issue due to the innovation of new technology (like cloud computing). Since its recent creation, cloud computing has enabled companies to store their information off site, freeing up office space where servers would normally go and diminishing the need for IT workers. Cloud computing encourages economies to scale and reduces scarcity.
Additionally, roundtable 6 discussed the challenges of this new “Internet Age”. No state owns the internet as it is a common pool resource. Information easily crosses borders with little control by state governments. The roundtable concluded the day by asking, “Should the international community try to regulate the internet?”
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 14-Thursday
Thursday morning’s roundtable focused on the impact of social media. The delegates voiced that social media immerses us in the opinions of others, particularly in those of our friends. Kevin expressed his concern for how governments are able to use social networks to incriminate individuals who voice thier opinions to friends and strangers on the web. CDR Hodges sees the news taking objective subjects with objective answers and molding them into “what do you think?”-type topics. Donald inserted that social media is only a tool to act on something that individuals have stirring within themselves. Social media offers both a medium and a source of courage to speak out on what individuals feel is needed be voiced.
The roundtable discussed the effects of social media on our non-virtual social lives. CDR Hodges stated that technologies accelerate human tendencies. Which was followed by Nate’s opinion that there will always be a yearning for the human element. Tying in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the delegates concluded that there will always be voids that technology will not be able to fill.
Where do we go from here? Shelby thinks that we are in the era of citizen journalism and that society is likely to continue to steer down that path. Kacie envisions that the media in the future, very much as it is today, will be directed by money. In closing, the delegates came to an agreement that although we have uncharted waters ahead of us, we will all benefit greatly from our generation’s use of media in the internet age.
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 14-Wednesday Part 2
Wednesday afternoon’s discussion was centered around the examination of the influence that business has on the “fourth estate”. The table moderator, Donald Bowers, used the United States’ two major media conglomerates, Time Warner and Viacom, as prime examples of the impact that big business had on the information we receive. The amount of news and entertainment networks that fall under these two corporations illustrated how widespread the decisions of each company’s board of directors has on the dissemination of information.
Daniel, an officer in the Royal Navy, educated the delegates on the how Great Britain's state-run news outlet, the BBC, is funded and operated. Daniel’s knowledge of state-run news agencies led the group towards discussing the pros and cons of both government-run and commercialized media outlets. After deliberating the inevitable biases that would be formed by both government-run and privatized news agencies, the table delegates concluded that it is preferable to have biased projected by private companies rather than by governments.
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 14-Wednesday
We were joined this morning by students and faculty from South River High School.This morning’s roundtable discussion began with table moderator, Donald Bowers, showing a clip of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. The discussion then turned toward Admiral Blair and his address to the conference this morning on cyber security. Daniel, an officer in the Royal Navy, offered his insight with regard to how the United States’ stance on cyber freedom differs slightly from that of the United Kingdom. Andrea, a midshipman from the Italian Naval Academy, voiced his opinion on how positions on cyber security are relatively uniform throughout the continent of Europe. The table’s senior advisor, CDR Hodges, examined the notion of sovereignty and how it is concrete when relating to people and nations, but is blurred when dealing with information and data. The discussion naturally leads into the examination of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange’s dissemination the sensitive information. Enid, from Albania, questions how the First Amendment plays into the media’s release of information that could potentially put people’s lives at risk. Shruti, from India and studying at York College, brought up the assistance that the media unintentionally the terrorist in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. Lance, a midshipman from the U.S. Naval Academy, proposed that the purpose of the media was to promote free democracy based on free risk.
Donald added to the discussion through airing a Frontline special on the U.S. government run Swift program that was reveled by The New York Times in 2007 as well as the change in information policy .The group then deliberated the role that the media has in its control over the government and foreign policy. The question of whether or not media outlets should withhold sensitive information was examined. Kacie, from Virginia Tech, concluded that a media outlet’s credibility would be greatly at risk if it was ever disclosed that they were withholding information from their audience.
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 14-Tuesday Part 2
Tuesday afternoon’s speakers provided an excellent foundation for our second roundtable discussion. Donald began this session by examining Dr. Zeynep Tufekci’s statement that the era of the autocrat is on its way out. The immediate response of the group was how the statement relates to Kim Jong Il’s dictatorship in North Korea. After deliberating the internet and media’s involvement in North Korea, the discussion turned towards international news as a whole. The group began to mull over an idea brought up by Anna, from Furman University, that our interest in foreign news is ignited by a sensational spark. Anna’s point directly relates to the uprising in Tunisia that has had a domino effect in the Arab World.
Further into the roundtable session, The question of what drives news outlets into foreign countries was brought up and the table concluded that the media understands their role in foreign policy. What the media covers is what the politicians must respond to, which in turn directly effects what policy is implemented and changed. The roundtable session concluded with the delegates agreeing that as consumers of the “fourth estate”, we can not become complacent if the news that is being reported in way that we do not see fit. Tomorrow morning’s discussion will center around the effects of social media on our generation.
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 1-Thursday
In the final Roundtable of the conference the group opened by proposing the question, “What role does social media play in war?” Certainly, information posted on Facebook can come back to haunt any user, but could information posted by military personnel be utilized to gain a definite strategic advantage? With this in mind, the delegates quickly came to the conclusion that the manipulation of personal information could result in ethical dilemmas. Technology provides amazing empowerment to everyday people, however it can just as easily be misused to infringe upon rights, and in extreme cases, oppress the voice of the people.
The Roundtable found that by influencing political unrest, via the use of social media and social networks, governments had the capability to influence other states’ policy in a manner which has never previously been capable. Foreign governments now have the ability to magnify the effects of minor unrest against particular policies through social media coverage and attention. In a harder display of force governments are able to incite“Bloodless Revolutions” by playing upon the passions of social media users, particularly the youth.
Towards the end of the Roundtable, another excellent question was proposed. Are we nearing the end of conventional warfare? Will technology and social media influence be enough to avert traditional “physical” warfare? Midshipmen delegates, fearful of their job security, tended to argue that Cyber Warfare alone was not enough to wage war. Rather they argued, that cyber warfare will be used to supplement physical military force. Eventually, it was determined that although cyber warfare may develop to dominate conventional warfare, physical force deterrents will be necessary for the extent of the foreseeable future.
Moderator Brandon Beckler reluctantly concludes the Roundtable for group photographs, evaluations, and lunch. Overly the Roundtable has been an enormous success. The delegates are excited to attend future Foreign Affairs Conferences.
Moderator Brandon Beckler reluctantly concludes the Roundtable for group photographs, evaluations, and lunch. Overly the Roundtable has been an enormous success. The delegates are excited to attend future Foreign Affairs Conferences.
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 1-Wednesday
During our second day of discussion, Roundtable 2 sought to evaluate the constraints upon governments when monitoring internet traffic. Delegates generally agreed that information posted on public forums was free game for governments to monitor, however they also felt that a fine line should be drawn to prevent the government from monitoring private data such as email and keystroke history. The Roundtable examined the roll of governmental agencies in monitoring Internet traffic and evaluated various policies which the Department of Defense employs to utilize the Internet as a tool against crime and terrorist attacks. Furthermore, one delegate questioned as to how US Cyber Command would function in relation to other military command elements, and how this would impact the role of cyber warfare in future engagements. The conversation gained fervor when delegates began to debate the line between utilizing the Internet to ensure public safety and compromising the rights of users who have their personal information compromised by government monitoring. Tomorrow’s fifth and final Roundtable should prove to be very exciting considering the energy and insight of today’s discussion.
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 11-Wednesday
Started the day off right with a speech by ADM Dennis Blair, former Director of National Intelligence. He had some interesting insight into developments in cyber warfare and cyber security. The conversation at the roundtable first discussed the speech. Can we reinvent the Internet to make it more secure? In what image would it form? We decided that even if it were possible to recreate the Internet in another, the legality of such actions would be questionable at best. Who would be watching to make sure that the Internet forms right? Will they have access to all the information on the Web? There would have to be a worldwide consensus to change the Internet and that is unlikely to happen.
Who should be protecting cyberspace: the government or private industry? Both can help, but the interests of the business need to line up with the interests of the government, which is often not the case. Businesses are motivated by profit while government is motivated by a need to please and help people. But there can’t be only one option because that leads to corruption and monopoly. Is there extent to what the government can protect and what it can’t? It obviously needs to protect financial and national security concerns but what else? Social sites? Banks? Private businesses? What the government can protect ultimately comes down to budget. If government does decide to cooperate with businesses, how is that relationship portrayed by the rest of the world? Well, it depends on the country, but countries don’t always trust private companies, especially when they try to exploit them.
Regardless of the view of business, there are changes that need to be made to adapt to a globally interconnected world. First, bring in progressive thinkers and young people who understand the ways of technology. Once that infrastructure is established, the learning curve for the rest of the country will be quite steep. But this can only happen if the fear of technology and what technology brings is overcome. Familiarity brings comfort and acceptance. The same thing is true of cultural dissemination; people have to want it to happen, it can’t be forced. We finished with America’s role in the world. Some said we should focus on security then on soft power. Others said we should be the police of the world in the form of international organizations and regimes. We place our national interests over anything else and we should. But we need to decide to change ourselves for the better of the world though at the same focus on our domestic problems. Find that balance.
Who should be protecting cyberspace: the government or private industry? Both can help, but the interests of the business need to line up with the interests of the government, which is often not the case. Businesses are motivated by profit while government is motivated by a need to please and help people. But there can’t be only one option because that leads to corruption and monopoly. Is there extent to what the government can protect and what it can’t? It obviously needs to protect financial and national security concerns but what else? Social sites? Banks? Private businesses? What the government can protect ultimately comes down to budget. If government does decide to cooperate with businesses, how is that relationship portrayed by the rest of the world? Well, it depends on the country, but countries don’t always trust private companies, especially when they try to exploit them.
Regardless of the view of business, there are changes that need to be made to adapt to a globally interconnected world. First, bring in progressive thinkers and young people who understand the ways of technology. Once that infrastructure is established, the learning curve for the rest of the country will be quite steep. But this can only happen if the fear of technology and what technology brings is overcome. Familiarity brings comfort and acceptance. The same thing is true of cultural dissemination; people have to want it to happen, it can’t be forced. We finished with America’s role in the world. Some said we should focus on security then on soft power. Others said we should be the police of the world in the form of international organizations and regimes. We place our national interests over anything else and we should. But we need to decide to change ourselves for the better of the world though at the same focus on our domestic problems. Find that balance.
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 3
The internet provides very cheap entertainment, but does it create a divide between academics and entertainment? The internet appears to be changing how we process information. Since the creation of the internet people have become different consumers of media and news. Studies have shown that this change in how we process media has actually caused changes in our physical brain structure and also its physiology. This small change in how people are processing media may have led to a lack of synthesizing information, and more of a focus on information as opposed to knowledge. The move towards information over knowledge is affecting our society, and the world as a whole. The pace of the world is changing, and this change is becoming culturally and societally pervasive. The bombardment of information may be making it more difficult to become a well informed citizen, which makes it hard to really understand policy and become knowledgeable on the policy. If the amount of energy it requires to make an informed vote outweighs the impact of the vote then people may chose to vote uninformed - or simply not vote at all. If these uniformed community members fail to understand what is happening locally, how are they expected to actively participate in their community, let alone see global implications of their actions and understand international problems that will - and should - influence domestic policy?
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 15-Wednesday
Absolutely stimulating discussion today by our delegates, as they became more comfortable with each other, willing to interject freely and disagree on issues. Moderator Chris O’Keefe began the day framing the day’s topic with the question: ‘Does the international community have the capability to preemptively end or stop genocide from occurring and if yes, should they?’ One problem we face in the promulgation of genocide awareness and its prevention stems from the American public’s increasingly desensitization to graphic images and videos from conflict zones. This result poses a difficult obstacle to those championing the prevention of genocide. Particularly fascinating to the group was what constitutes the difference in action in Libya and Darfur by the US and the international community? Is it too cynical to assume the disparity in response lies in the variance in national interest and popularity of the two issues? The existence of oil, difference in race, and availability of internet coverage especially videos and pictures all play an integral role in the difference in policy.
Moving on, the roundtable first postulated that active military intervention can prevent genocide, yet on closer introspection many came to believe that military force has never been ultimately successful. Instead, the answer lies in development. Creating an infrastructure that enables international awareness in a region, augments the standard of living, and educates the inhabitants should be the goal of policy makers around the world. When has there been genocide in an area of relative affluence? Never. The answer of development poses other questions that we could not answer definitively but many conjectures were debated. Who will bring this development? Private companies and corporations looking for natural resources, cheap labor, and an untapped population could be a possibility. Conversely, governments may have an incentive to aid in development in return for favorable trade deals, alliances, and control over natural resources. China’s funding of development in Africa may be an example of this policy. Where does the United States fit into this situation? Indubitably, the US cannot repeat its nation building efforts to the extent of Iraq and Afghanistan, yet we must act to preserve our humanitarian values to the best of our ability.
Moving on, the roundtable first postulated that active military intervention can prevent genocide, yet on closer introspection many came to believe that military force has never been ultimately successful. Instead, the answer lies in development. Creating an infrastructure that enables international awareness in a region, augments the standard of living, and educates the inhabitants should be the goal of policy makers around the world. When has there been genocide in an area of relative affluence? Never. The answer of development poses other questions that we could not answer definitively but many conjectures were debated. Who will bring this development? Private companies and corporations looking for natural resources, cheap labor, and an untapped population could be a possibility. Conversely, governments may have an incentive to aid in development in return for favorable trade deals, alliances, and control over natural resources. China’s funding of development in Africa may be an example of this policy. Where does the United States fit into this situation? Indubitably, the US cannot repeat its nation building efforts to the extent of Iraq and Afghanistan, yet we must act to preserve our humanitarian values to the best of our ability.
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 10-Wednesday Part 2
Two major things were settled upon. First, there needs to be at least a certain level of “development” in a country before the introduction of technology will have any valuable effect. If the basics of “Maslow’s Hierarchy” are not being fulfilled use of technology and connection to the internet is pretty useless. Second, any hope of technology taking root in developing countries lies in the companies/governments who are investing in it. With many “developing” countries being a dangerous risk from a business standpoint it is unlikely that without some sort of insurance or stabilizing factor the investments will ever be more than small scale endeavors.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 5-Wednesday
We spent the first part of the morning discussing the USA and the Internet censorship and what role the United States should have if any in controlling the world’s computer network. We also discussed the possibility of the Internet kill switch and the legality of such a thing and what the situations it would be appropriate to use such a thing in. We then discussed Wikileaks and how the government’s need for secrecy ties in with censorship. Finally we discussed software as a weapon and if it should be controlled as arms are controlled.
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 10-Wednesday
Can technology be used to subvert corruption in government? Mobile banking in Africa has allowed people to cultivate saving and move money quickly. We need to ensure the integration of technology is done in a way that allows for positive use and benefits the people. How do you solve the problems with illiteracy and how they affect the integration of technology? Does technology meet the needs of the people? Do they desire education, money, connectivity? In order to bring inexpensive technology to the developing world we could invest in research in stabilizing the technology we already have rather than always pushing the envelope. Will the computer help these villages, is it all useless without the connectivity to the internet?
What can be done as far as educating using the technology, distance learning etc? Is distance education via the internet a suitable substitute for classroom/professor/peer interaction?
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 10-Tuesday Part 2
Group used time to get to know each other. Mids and visiting delegates had a lot of good discussion about each other’s backgrounds and future plans. Group will certainly be more comfortable with discussion tomorrow.
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 3-Tuesday Part 2
We focused on a revolutionary idea of providing letter of marques to hackers. This would in turn, privatize the hacking industry and force hackers to get a nation state as a patron. Just like the Golden Age of Piracy, in which piracy was considered a crime against humanity; we now live in a time where hacking could be considered a crime against humanity as a result needs to regulated or destroyed.
This led to the problem of establishing legitimacy for nation states. Who would regulate these letters of marques and would certain organizations such as NGOs get to the right to issue out these letters of commissions to hackers?
This led to the problem of establishing legitimacy for nation states. Who would regulate these letters of marques and would certain organizations such as NGOs get to the right to issue out these letters of commissions to hackers?
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 9-Tuesday
Is the presence and use of social media a prerequisite for a revolution? When evaluating the current revolutions occurring in the Middle East, particularly Egypt, it would seem that this statement holds true. Egypt has been in unrest for years; however a tangible change or movement never took root until the emergence of facebook and twitter groups across the country, particularly the anonymous users, such as Wael Ghonim in Egypt. Roundtable 9 argues differently. Would these vast changes and developments in Egypt and Tunisia, and many other Middle Eastern countries, have happened without the role of social media and its use among protestors to organize, plan and raise support for their movements? Although the movements were slow to take root, they still would have happened without social media’s large role, just on a longer timeline. Social media has acted as an accelerant in the social movements of the Middle East in the past few months, not necessarily an enabler.
When discussing the role of social media in revolution, it is important to note the role that government censorship plays in this process. Clearly, as the current situations in Egypt and China will prove, government censorship of social media poses a large roadblock to the success of social movements. Bloggers, facebook and twitter users and internet activists in many countries have been arrested and banned from using these social media websites. In Egypt, all cell phone and internet activity was shut down by the government as a whole. In China, facebook and twitter are blocked altogether. These instances beg the question regarding internet freedom across the world. There is a clear divide between individuals wishing to defeat censorship and those who wish to maintain the current sanctions on secure internet use.
When discussing the role of social media in revolution, it is important to note the role that government censorship plays in this process. Clearly, as the current situations in Egypt and China will prove, government censorship of social media poses a large roadblock to the success of social movements. Bloggers, facebook and twitter users and internet activists in many countries have been arrested and banned from using these social media websites. In Egypt, all cell phone and internet activity was shut down by the government as a whole. In China, facebook and twitter are blocked altogether. These instances beg the question regarding internet freedom across the world. There is a clear divide between individuals wishing to defeat censorship and those who wish to maintain the current sanctions on secure internet use.
Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook COO, speaks in Forrestal Lecture Series at USNA in honor of NAFAC 2011
"I believe that everything is changing because of technology."
In regards to the Prime Minister of Egypt's resignation: "He didn't hold a press conference...he did it on Facebook."
Sandberg's Four Leadership Principles
1. Leaders don't just command, they inspire.
2. Leaders don't just talk, they listen.
3. Leaders don't just have great ideas, they recognize them.
4. Leaders don't just develop people like them, they develop everyone.
"What would you do if you weren't afraid?"
"Done is better than perfect."
"Move fast and break things."
"I wish for you the passion to inspire, the courage to listen, the insight to recognize great leaders, and the understanding to develop everyone."
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 1-Tuesday
After completing introductions and administrative formalities, discussion in Roundtable 1 turned towards evaluating Ethan Zuckerman’s address and determining the role that social media plays in international politics. It was decided that nation states have the ability to influence political fervor through manipulation or outright denial of social media outlets. Examples of such behavior have been witnessed during the revolutions in Egypt, Iran, and Tunisia. From this point the conversation began to transition to debate the extent to which nation states were able to utilize control of the cyber-realm as a projection of power in the global community.
In accordance with the topic of the Roundtable, the delegates actively discussed recent examples of cyber-warfare attacks such as the denial of service attacks against Georgia, the hacking of Estonia’s national banking system, and the use of the Stuxnet virus against Iranian nuclear facilities. Hypothetical situations for future attacks were proposed, and the ramifications of such attacks were discussed. After some debate, it was agreed upon that cyber warfare and cyber espionage/crime were independent terms with their own unique parameters. As such, discussion of cyber warfare must be constrained to attacks which target the infrastructure of a nation state, as opposed to user to user attacks, and data theft. This conclusion was fundamental in opening the floor for the discussion of the ethics of cyber warfare, which the Roundtable will further address in upcoming sessions.
Overall, Roundtable 1 accomplished much during the first day, and successfully laid the groundwork for further discussion on the role of cyber warfare in great power politics. Expect future updates to tackle issues such as proportionality of response to cyber attack, the sovereignty of nation states in the cyber realm, and the establishment of a unified code of ethics for cyber warfare.
In accordance with the topic of the Roundtable, the delegates actively discussed recent examples of cyber-warfare attacks such as the denial of service attacks against Georgia, the hacking of Estonia’s national banking system, and the use of the Stuxnet virus against Iranian nuclear facilities. Hypothetical situations for future attacks were proposed, and the ramifications of such attacks were discussed. After some debate, it was agreed upon that cyber warfare and cyber espionage/crime were independent terms with their own unique parameters. As such, discussion of cyber warfare must be constrained to attacks which target the infrastructure of a nation state, as opposed to user to user attacks, and data theft. This conclusion was fundamental in opening the floor for the discussion of the ethics of cyber warfare, which the Roundtable will further address in upcoming sessions.
Overall, Roundtable 1 accomplished much during the first day, and successfully laid the groundwork for further discussion on the role of cyber warfare in great power politics. Expect future updates to tackle issues such as proportionality of response to cyber attack, the sovereignty of nation states in the cyber realm, and the establishment of a unified code of ethics for cyber warfare.
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 7-Tuesday
The first round table began with a debrief of the lecture by Mr. Ethan Zuckerman. The table discussed Twitter and its applications and came to the conclusion that Twitter is profitable on for smaller scale information and should be nothing more than a headline for any important event.
From there we began discussing cyber crime in hopes of defining the subject for further discussion. It was recognized that many “cyber” crimes that are discussed now days are in reality “crimes using a computer”, meaning that the computer was simply a tool being used in the crime. The Iraq War Wikileaks were recognized as such a crime. In discussion over various scam methods the round table learned of scams from all over the world, from Albania to Chile to New Zealand.
From this point onward the discussion centered around the transnational issues of cyber crime such as who funds Internet policing, who should be responsible for pursuing and prosecuting the criminals, and the problems of proving guilt in the cyber realm. There was hope that international consensus could be found on heinous crimes like human trafficking in order for decisive action to follow.
The second round table started with a discussion of censorship and how far we’d be comfortable allowing others to look through our possessions. The rest of the talk was about possible world wide plans that would eliminate or severely disrupt illegal activity around the globe. The focus was on if private citizens, companies, nations, or supranational authorities would be the best organizations o combat cyber crime. It was agreed upon that some mix of private and national organizations would be the best system. The round table then headed out and went to dinner.
From there we began discussing cyber crime in hopes of defining the subject for further discussion. It was recognized that many “cyber” crimes that are discussed now days are in reality “crimes using a computer”, meaning that the computer was simply a tool being used in the crime. The Iraq War Wikileaks were recognized as such a crime. In discussion over various scam methods the round table learned of scams from all over the world, from Albania to Chile to New Zealand.
From this point onward the discussion centered around the transnational issues of cyber crime such as who funds Internet policing, who should be responsible for pursuing and prosecuting the criminals, and the problems of proving guilt in the cyber realm. There was hope that international consensus could be found on heinous crimes like human trafficking in order for decisive action to follow.
The second round table started with a discussion of censorship and how far we’d be comfortable allowing others to look through our possessions. The rest of the talk was about possible world wide plans that would eliminate or severely disrupt illegal activity around the globe. The focus was on if private citizens, companies, nations, or supranational authorities would be the best organizations o combat cyber crime. It was agreed upon that some mix of private and national organizations would be the best system. The round table then headed out and went to dinner.
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 6-Tuesday Part 2
Following the talk by Zeynep Tufekci and Evgeny Morozov, roundtable 6 began the second session by discussing the benefits and disadvantages of the “Internet Age”. Benefits included interconnectedness and the speed, access, and wealth of information. The major disadvantage discussed was the disconnect between people. As more and more technology is created, person to person interaction drastically increases. Ultimately, roundtable 6 decided we need a good balance of both technology and personal interaction.
The next question posed was: Should there be an age limit for technology? Surprisingly, most people said yes. One delegate used the analogy of teaching math in school and the use of a calculator. In elementary school, your teachers used to make you practice your multiplication tables and do your math problems by hand, despite the fact a calculator could do the work much quicker. They did this because you much understand the fundamentals of math, so that you can learn more advanced math. Had our elementary school teachers always let us use a calculator, many of us would be handicapped by technology.
Next, Arjun Verma, a senior from Tufts University, presented his paper on mobile phones and their potential to end poverty in the developing world. There are more cell phone users and providers in the developing world than the developed world. The potential for growth is huge. Cellphones broaden a person’s network despite a country’s infrastructure or governance. Through the use of mobile banking and money transferring, people can begin to make smarter choices with their money. This idea has already proven itself in Kenya where the M-Pesa program has integrated banking, telecommunications and micro financing.
Roundtable 6 ended the day’s discussion with a brief look at scarcity. Tomorrow roundtable 6 will begin with the presentation of another delegate’s paper.
The next question posed was: Should there be an age limit for technology? Surprisingly, most people said yes. One delegate used the analogy of teaching math in school and the use of a calculator. In elementary school, your teachers used to make you practice your multiplication tables and do your math problems by hand, despite the fact a calculator could do the work much quicker. They did this because you much understand the fundamentals of math, so that you can learn more advanced math. Had our elementary school teachers always let us use a calculator, many of us would be handicapped by technology.
Next, Arjun Verma, a senior from Tufts University, presented his paper on mobile phones and their potential to end poverty in the developing world. There are more cell phone users and providers in the developing world than the developed world. The potential for growth is huge. Cellphones broaden a person’s network despite a country’s infrastructure or governance. Through the use of mobile banking and money transferring, people can begin to make smarter choices with their money. This idea has already proven itself in Kenya where the M-Pesa program has integrated banking, telecommunications and micro financing.
Roundtable 6 ended the day’s discussion with a brief look at scarcity. Tomorrow roundtable 6 will begin with the presentation of another delegate’s paper.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 15-Tuesday
Today, we began our discussion with the printing press and its pervasive effects on medieval society, and the role this technology played as a catalyst for the Renaissance and Enlightenment. The group noticed parallels with the multi-faceted consequences that the Church faced along with the secular exchange in the communities of science and philosophy with the role the internet and other social media play in modern times. The Church may be compared with the modern State or any established organization, while the exchange of intellectual information corresponds to the social media sites and general international connectivity, which the internet fosters.
Following this foray into the Middle Ages, the discussion strayed to the thematic element of the speed of the internet. The ability for individuals to discover current events instantaneously as they unfold at the click of a mouse has great implications to society. Several delegates posed the question, “Are we overwhelmed by speed?” while others attempted to reconcile the apparent positive aspect of rapid, increased connectivity with the difficulties governments face as a result of instantaneous global connectivity. The American public expects an immediate response to every event in the world, but the U.S. government cannot execute policy this way. Democracies and international coalitions are inherently slow to produce a resolution or formulate a policy. In certain situations, it is possible that another medium, such as NGOs may be needed to intervene and act immediately to deal with a crisis. President Obama’s recent deliberations and the American public’s anger over his lack of a clear policy in Libya exemplify this conundrum.
Following this foray into the Middle Ages, the discussion strayed to the thematic element of the speed of the internet. The ability for individuals to discover current events instantaneously as they unfold at the click of a mouse has great implications to society. Several delegates posed the question, “Are we overwhelmed by speed?” while others attempted to reconcile the apparent positive aspect of rapid, increased connectivity with the difficulties governments face as a result of instantaneous global connectivity. The American public expects an immediate response to every event in the world, but the U.S. government cannot execute policy this way. Democracies and international coalitions are inherently slow to produce a resolution or formulate a policy. In certain situations, it is possible that another medium, such as NGOs may be needed to intervene and act immediately to deal with a crisis. President Obama’s recent deliberations and the American public’s anger over his lack of a clear policy in Libya exemplify this conundrum.
Tomorrow, the roundtable will focus on genocide, including case studies of specific examples in recent history, and the role social media and other connection technologies play in the alleviation or augmentation of genocide.
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 14-Tuesday
Following the table introduction and goal setting session, the moderator-led discussion began. The delegates all had insightful comments and questions that added to the discussion. Daniel, an officer in the British Navy, expressed his concern for how free media effects operational security. Donald raised the poignant question of whether American tech companies going into foreign nations appear as our government trying to infiltrate under “a mask”. Donald then aired a clip from 20/20 on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart which highlighted the difference between entrainment and news . The clip lead into the discussion of the objectivity of news which arrived at the conclusion that news is a business and that the “fourth estate” must cater to the needs of their customer, the general public. Our morning roundtable discussion closed with the question that the table will examine for the remainder of the conference: “How do we know what we’re getting is true?”
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 11-Tuesday
Exciting day for RT11. We started off the conversation with commentary on Mr. Ethan Zuckerman’s speech. This led into a discussion on how the Internet has changed the way people protest and communicate. We talked about the old ways--TV, news media, radio-- and how hard it was to mobilize a large group of people. This line of thinking led us into how the budget crisis was viewed by the rest of the world. Basically we decided that America was almost hypocritical in that we can’t manage our own budget but expect others to do so. Politicians were childish and dramatic but a positive note is that it shows America can resolve differences without resorting to violence.
The conversation really got lively when we moved into the definition of Soft Power. Multiple definitions were brought; the most popular ones being, “cultural, political values and foreign policy,” and “influencing others by attraction rather than by coercion.” But what happens when Soft Power isn’t enough? The US should use a policy of “Smart Power”-- a combination of Hard Power and Soft Power into a national strategy. 3/C Klimchuk brought up an excellent example citing the Cold War as a prime example of Smart Power in action. The outward appearance of US policy towards the Soviet Union was one of Hard power-- the arms race, nuclear calculus and Containment policy being specific cases. But on the inside, we applied Soft Power, in the form of cultural dissemination, to allow the Soviet people to see a world outside the Soviet Union.
The conversation really got lively when we moved into the definition of Soft Power. Multiple definitions were brought; the most popular ones being, “cultural, political values and foreign policy,” and “influencing others by attraction rather than by coercion.” But what happens when Soft Power isn’t enough? The US should use a policy of “Smart Power”-- a combination of Hard Power and Soft Power into a national strategy. 3/C Klimchuk brought up an excellent example citing the Cold War as a prime example of Smart Power in action. The outward appearance of US policy towards the Soviet Union was one of Hard power-- the arms race, nuclear calculus and Containment policy being specific cases. But on the inside, we applied Soft Power, in the form of cultural dissemination, to allow the Soviet people to see a world outside the Soviet Union.
Naturally, culture is a significant part of any Smart Power policy and the question was brought up on how exactly culture plays a part in foreign policy. While American culture can attract others to our cause or way of life, countries around the world are trying to block the push of Westernization, mainly China. China is very sensitive to cultural change and fears what freedom of Internet could do. They fear, not democracy per se, but pornography, gambling, and potential cyberspace attack and hacking. This is a very real fear and one the United States can not necessary stop. We should find the balance between spreading our values and respecting national identity.
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 10-Tuesday
Table soon realized that this topic is immensely broad. Many different elements and challenges of bringing technology to developing countries were discussed. Topics ranged from whether using foreign programmers was exploitation or a good way to spread technology to the effects of agriculture if technology took hold in primarily agricultural nations. The discussion ended with a new focus “How do we create a “petri dish” in cities and countries around the world where technology can develop?”.
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 6-Tuesday
To begin rountable 6, each person introduced themselves and then gave their reason for coming to the conference. We then moved into a discussion of Ethan Zuckerman’s Opening Address. The delegates found Zuckerman’s comments to be a great introduction for the conference. Moderator Rishi Shah then discussed how he was going to run the roundtable and together, the delegates all defined important terms related to roundtable 6. For the remainder of the roundtable, Rishi decided to let the delegates discuss anything and everything that related to technology and the military in hopes of breaking the ice.
One of the most interesting issues discussed was the government’s role in the global technology market. Is it the government’s responsibility to provide subsidies to certain industries? Should the government provide money to private companies for research and development? The delegates concluded that the government can’t drive the economy and that ultimately the products do. Government intervention only increases the role of lobbyists and forces the U.S. to use technology that might not be in its best interest. Another key topic discussed was the line between the civilian and military worlds. As the world as become more globalized and new technologies have been created, the line separating the two institutions has become blurred. While the military can be used for many different operations, the military only has so much utility. Additionally, technology can on get us so far. America must continue to rely on its private sector to produce the technologies of the future. Yes, the military will discover innovations like GPS, but without the private sector, these innovations have a limited use.
One of the most interesting issues discussed was the government’s role in the global technology market. Is it the government’s responsibility to provide subsidies to certain industries? Should the government provide money to private companies for research and development? The delegates concluded that the government can’t drive the economy and that ultimately the products do. Government intervention only increases the role of lobbyists and forces the U.S. to use technology that might not be in its best interest. Another key topic discussed was the line between the civilian and military worlds. As the world as become more globalized and new technologies have been created, the line separating the two institutions has become blurred. While the military can be used for many different operations, the military only has so much utility. Additionally, technology can on get us so far. America must continue to rely on its private sector to produce the technologies of the future. Yes, the military will discover innovations like GPS, but without the private sector, these innovations have a limited use.
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 5-Tuesday
The first part of the round-table, revolved around introductions and the topic of every delegates papers. We then went into the definition of censorship and the different types to include moral, political, social, etc. and discussed if there was such a thing as legitimate censorship. Many of the discussions focused on the Chinese, as that is what many of the delegates wrote their papers on. The second roundtable went more in depth on people’s paper topics and data was looked at on censorship in other countries, not just China.
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 4-Tuesday
We began our discussion with a round of introductions that revealed the diverse backgrounds of our group. With members coming not only from across the country but around the globe, discussions are sure to be filled with interesting conversations and a variety of viewpoints. After getting to know one another we moved on to establish a baseline for our round table by drafting definitions for common terms that related to Terrorism and the Internet. Defining what constituted a terrorist act proved to be more challenging than anticipated as many delegates debated a plethora of issues relating to this definition. These included whether nation states could commit terrorist acts, whether or not the murder of military personnel constituted a terrorist attack, and if cyber attacks carried the same weight as conventional terrorist attacks. Eventually we created a working definition of a terrorist act to be; a violent act intended to strike fear, often through immoral means that violated international rules of warfare, as a result of political, ideological, and religious motivations.
With this definition in hand, we moved on to discuss the methods through which terrorists use the Internet, the options we have to stop or deter them, and the impact cyber terrorism can have on everyone from small organizations to larger companies to nation states. Terrorists rely on the Internet for a free medium to spread their ideals and propaganda, recruit members, and relay encrypted information detailing attack plans, training tools, and building methods for deadly weapons including IEDs. Our group debated the United States and the International community’s options for combating these terrorists who manipulate the freedom of speech the Internet provides. We concluded that shutting down these sites or the Internet as a whole, as Ethan Zuckerman mentioned that morning, is neither an effective nor realistic method to silence these voices. Educating people on the motives and implications of cyber attack, ignoring the attack, or inhibiting the publicity associated with their efforts by drowning out their attack with other newsworthy information were all methods proposed in our discussion.
With this definition in hand, we moved on to discuss the methods through which terrorists use the Internet, the options we have to stop or deter them, and the impact cyber terrorism can have on everyone from small organizations to larger companies to nation states. Terrorists rely on the Internet for a free medium to spread their ideals and propaganda, recruit members, and relay encrypted information detailing attack plans, training tools, and building methods for deadly weapons including IEDs. Our group debated the United States and the International community’s options for combating these terrorists who manipulate the freedom of speech the Internet provides. We concluded that shutting down these sites or the Internet as a whole, as Ethan Zuckerman mentioned that morning, is neither an effective nor realistic method to silence these voices. Educating people on the motives and implications of cyber attack, ignoring the attack, or inhibiting the publicity associated with their efforts by drowning out their attack with other newsworthy information were all methods proposed in our discussion.
We closed our discussion by debating what rights governments had when defending themselves against cyber terrorism. In addition we began to question what separated a cyber attack from a full out cyber war and closed our roundtable considering how great the impact of a cyber attack must be for it to be worthy of comparison to a terrorist attack.
Roundtable Wrap-Up: RT 3-Tuesday
In the first discussion, the roundtable focused on the future of the Internet as a weapon. The general consensus was that as of now, the majority of the world’s population does not have a definite interest in the security of the Internet. It is something that most people take for granted because nothing has happened yet that has shaken their core. The delegates stated that there will be an event that will “drastically change the minds of everyone,” such as an virtual attack on the Stock Exchange or personal bank accounts.
Another topic was the connection between the perpetrators of this virtual attack and various terrorist groups. Most terrorist groups would be focused on a certain political end state, while the hackers would mostly be focused on the economic value of their actions.
Another topic was the connection between the perpetrators of this virtual attack and various terrorist groups. Most terrorist groups would be focused on a certain political end state, while the hackers would mostly be focused on the economic value of their actions.
I believe one of the most interesting comments that was made was the idea that individuals should be held responsible for the actions of their computers. This particular stance was taken because, if individuals are held responsible for their actions at home by their neighbors, why shouldn’t the Internet and computers be viewed in the same light? The only problem with this particular viewpoint is that it brings into question the topic of who governs the Internet. This broad topic was followed by questions concerning the legitimacy of any NGO or government that tries to have control of the Internet.
NAFAC 2011 is finally here!
"International relations have always been profoundly affected by technology. The Internet - 20 years young - is having just such a profound impact. It constitutes, along with the IT systems it connects, a quantum leap in people's ability to communicate both one-to-one and one-to-many. Just as ocean-going sailing ships enabled the expansion of Europe in the 16th-18th centuries, the telegraph underpinned the empires of the 19th century, and the aeroplane, radio and TV have transformed international relations in the 20th century, the Internet creates a new set of opportunities and risks for the world. The main difference is that the changes will happen faster. It is still early to identify the Internet's impact on the relations between people across borders and between states. But it is necessary to try." -- Nicholas Westcott
Welcome to NAFAC 2011!
Our generation will face many new and undefined challenges in the technological realm. These challenges enhance, constrain, and sometimes undermine our foundational understanding of politics, economics, and sociology. They are not just technical issues, but human issues, which test our conceptualization of the world. In order to meet these challenges, we must engage them, bridging the gap between the humanities and the sciences. At the 2011 U.S. Naval Academy Foreign Affairs Conference, we will tackle the issues of People, Power, and Politics in the Internet Age.
Since 1961, the Naval Academy Foreign Affairs Conference (NAFAC) has provided an annual forum for outstanding undergraduates to meet and discuss major contemporary issues. The Conference has become a way of bringing together the nation's future Navy and Marine Corps officers with their peers from other colleges and universities, both civilian and military, from across the country and around the world.
All NAFAC delegates, upon nomination from their respective universities, are afforded the opportunity to engage in lively discussions, hear renowned experts on the issues, share their own personal views on world events, and learn more about the United States Naval Academy and the U.S. Naval Service.
The Naval Academy Foreign Affairs Conference attracts distinguished speakers each year. Recent guests include: President George H. W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley, General Wesley Clark, Vice President Joseph Biden, and Henry Kissinger.
2011 will mark the 51st year of the Naval Academy Foreign Affairs Conference. Past years have focused on topics such as Africa, the Middle East, Terrorism, the Role of Technology in International Relations, as well as many others.
Welcome to NAFAC 2011!
Our generation will face many new and undefined challenges in the technological realm. These challenges enhance, constrain, and sometimes undermine our foundational understanding of politics, economics, and sociology. They are not just technical issues, but human issues, which test our conceptualization of the world. In order to meet these challenges, we must engage them, bridging the gap between the humanities and the sciences. At the 2011 U.S. Naval Academy Foreign Affairs Conference, we will tackle the issues of People, Power, and Politics in the Internet Age.
Since 1961, the Naval Academy Foreign Affairs Conference (NAFAC) has provided an annual forum for outstanding undergraduates to meet and discuss major contemporary issues. The Conference has become a way of bringing together the nation's future Navy and Marine Corps officers with their peers from other colleges and universities, both civilian and military, from across the country and around the world.
All NAFAC delegates, upon nomination from their respective universities, are afforded the opportunity to engage in lively discussions, hear renowned experts on the issues, share their own personal views on world events, and learn more about the United States Naval Academy and the U.S. Naval Service.
The Naval Academy Foreign Affairs Conference attracts distinguished speakers each year. Recent guests include: President George H. W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley, General Wesley Clark, Vice President Joseph Biden, and Henry Kissinger.
2011 will mark the 51st year of the Naval Academy Foreign Affairs Conference. Past years have focused on topics such as Africa, the Middle East, Terrorism, the Role of Technology in International Relations, as well as many others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)