Users of
Internet Explorer 6.x
or before should be aware
that this site works best in
Firefox (best choice) or
Internet Explorer 7.x.
Some helpful links:
 |
| IE 7 at Microsoft |
Disclaimers
The views expressed by contributors to Dreaming 5GW are entirely their own and may not reflect the views of other contributors or the general editor.
Site
CLOSED SOURCE WARFARE
Networked insurgents and Global Guerrillas are, by definition, open source. Transnational and decentralized, they sacrifice secrecy in favor of flexibility and collaboration. They are by nature self-improving, as many users collaborating can make the organization more efficient, flexible, and resilient than a top-down hierarchy. Much analysis of current 4GW has employed the analytical model of the open-source network.
5GW, in contrast, is “closed-source.” As combatants in a secretive and conspiratorial form of warfare, 5GW organizations must carefully conceal their activities. This need for secrecy will severely limit the size and nature of 5GW networks. How then are 5GW networks structured? One model, as advanced by tdaxp and Purpleslog, involves a small group of super-empowered individuals with deep loyalties working in concert. Decision is made largely by consensus, and each individual has a stake in the outcome. They use and discard smaller non-state organizations, playing them off against each other to achieve a larger goal.
While 5GW still remains largely speculative, there is one important current “closed-source” network we can examine: the “darknet.”
Networked insurgents and Global Guerrillas are, by definition, open source. Transnational and decentralized, they sacrifice secrecy in favor of flexibility and collaboration. They are by nature self-improving, as many users collaborating can make the organization more efficient, flexible, and resilient than a top-down hierarchy. Much analysis of current 4GW has employed the analytical model of the open-source network.
5GW, in contrast, is “closed-source.” As combatants in a secretive and conspiratorial form of warfare, 5GW organizations must carefully conceal their activities. This need for secrecy will severely limit the size and nature of 5GW networks. How then are 5GW networks structured? One model, as advanced by tdaxp and Purpleslog, involves a small group of super-empowered individuals with deep loyalties working in concert. Decision is made largely by consensus, and each individual has a stake in the outcome. They use and discard smaller non-state organizations, playing them off against each other to achieve a larger goal.
While 5GW still remains largely speculative, there is one important current “closed-source” network we can examine: the “darknet.”
THE CHANGING FACE OF ILLICIT CONTENT DISTRIBUTION
In 2002, a group of Microsoft engineers published a paper titled “The Darknet and the Future of Content Distribution.” In the paper, the Microsoft engineers examined the evolution of illicit copyright networks. I separate each different linear evolution using the generational framework.
5GW DARKNETS
Darknets are solely designed to spread illegal entertainment content, while 5GW organizations subvert and change systems. However, just as there is some important overlap between networked terrorists and transnational criminals, darknets and 5GW groups are broadly similar.
Like darknets, 5GW groups are closed-source information networks. They both subvert law and order from within, and their small size and internal cohesion makes them effectively invisible to authorities. Just as open-source software development is used as a model for networked insurgent organization, we can use invitation-only and friend/family darknets as 5GW analytical models.
Also, the core-periphery relationship between the larger super-users and the smaller darknets mirrors the relationship between 5GW organizations and the unwitting pawns that they manipulate. How so? Just as the super-users’ aggregated content trickles down to the darknets, 5GW misinformation and misdirection is injected into the public sphere, where it is disseminated among smaller groups of individuals. These groups of individuals can range from social communities to informal groups of friends—what is important is that they spread the 5GW misinformation virally, amplifying and mutating the original effects of the propaganda.
An example of this process can be seen in urban mythology. Many uban legends may have started out as one story, but are spread by audiences that change the details of the story with each telling. The essence of the story does not change, but its ability to adapt its particulars to fit different locations and cultures makes it well-known over time. There is no reason to believe that 5GW misinformation will not be similarly modified. Additionally, these small communication networks provide cover for 5GW organizations in that they provide a ready explanation for the source of the misinformation.
In 2002, a group of Microsoft engineers published a paper titled “The Darknet and the Future of Content Distribution.” In the paper, the Microsoft engineers examined the evolution of illicit copyright networks. I separate each different linear evolution using the generational framework.
- 1st Generation: Small-scale copying in small, informal networks. Because of the technological limitations of cassette copiers and pre-1990s computers and the lack of widespread distribution mechanisms, copying was limited to small groups of friends, family, and acquaintances.
- 2nd Generation: Digital revolution enables large-scale copying and distribution of music. Copying involves users downloading from centralized databases of MP3 files, often hosted on college and university networks and ISPs. However, these are easily detected and disabled.
- 3rd Generation: Napster improves on the centralized database by creating a decentralized peer-to-peer (P2P) interface. By creating a distributed network of users sharing copyrighted content, Napster increases the scale of content distribution and lessens legal liability. However, Napster was not totally immune from the reach of the law. It maintained a maintained a centralized database with a searchable file index, making it liable for its users’ actions
- 4th Generation: Gnutella becomes the dominant mode of P2P distribution. Unlike Napster, it is totally decentralized. All one needs to download content is the IP address of another user, it is not run by any one individual or company, and it has substantial legal uses. However, in practice, 4th generation P2P networks are not totally decentralized. A small group of users provides the vast majority of the content while the rest leech of them. These users have become the targets of record company lawsuits, as the RIAA hopes to take down the network by attacking its nodes.
- 5th Generation: A return to the informal distribution networks of 1st generation, with informal networks of friends and acquaintances distributing files among each other. As long as they do not share with strangers, they are largely undetectable by media companies. Content diffuses from larger aggregate “super-users” to smaller networks—both consisting of informal friend/family groupings and encrypted invitation only file sharing networks. The chief innovation of this distribution method is that it largely guarantees user anonymity. Additionally, as the Microsoft engineers observed, it is hard to control individual dissemination of copyrighted material once it spreads from the “super-users” to smaller networks.
5GW DARKNETS
Darknets are solely designed to spread illegal entertainment content, while 5GW organizations subvert and change systems. However, just as there is some important overlap between networked terrorists and transnational criminals, darknets and 5GW groups are broadly similar.
Like darknets, 5GW groups are closed-source information networks. They both subvert law and order from within, and their small size and internal cohesion makes them effectively invisible to authorities. Just as open-source software development is used as a model for networked insurgent organization, we can use invitation-only and friend/family darknets as 5GW analytical models.
Also, the core-periphery relationship between the larger super-users and the smaller darknets mirrors the relationship between 5GW organizations and the unwitting pawns that they manipulate. How so? Just as the super-users’ aggregated content trickles down to the darknets, 5GW misinformation and misdirection is injected into the public sphere, where it is disseminated among smaller groups of individuals. These groups of individuals can range from social communities to informal groups of friends—what is important is that they spread the 5GW misinformation virally, amplifying and mutating the original effects of the propaganda.
An example of this process can be seen in urban mythology. Many uban legends may have started out as one story, but are spread by audiences that change the details of the story with each telling. The essence of the story does not change, but its ability to adapt its particulars to fit different locations and cultures makes it well-known over time. There is no reason to believe that 5GW misinformation will not be similarly modified. Additionally, these small communication networks provide cover for 5GW organizations in that they provide a ready explanation for the source of the misinformation.
Posted by Adam Elkus on Nov 22, 2007 03:27 AM
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Darknet: A Model for 5GW Organization.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://dreaming5gw.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/224.
3 Comments
Adam,
Fascinating post, and a brilliant extension of the “darknet” metaphor.
The “closed source” model implies lack of cohesion across the network. Does the cohesion “emerge” as a result of shared values
(or, more appropriately, shared antagonism)?
sf/ shane
Very interesting, Adam. You seem to imply - correct me if I’m wrong - that 5GW organizations are outside of or operate against the authorities. But such organizations might plausibly be found within government, e.g., a small group of people, possessing a radical new ideology, and wanting to gradually bring about a change in government policy-making to reflect their own ideas and agenda. Their activities could include misinformation aimed at discrediting the policies of the status quo.
That said, is there much difference between the 5GW organzations you describe, and good old-fashioned conspiracies against the state?
As I was reading your post I was thinking of the Nazi Party in the 1920s.
Peter
Shane,
Shared values would be the more likely bet.
Strategist,
A 5GW organization could indeed attempt to subvert a government from within—-as for your other question, I think this entry by tdaxp explains the paradigm a lot better than I can at the moment.