What Were Egypt’s Divers Up To With Underwater Cables?
by Christopher Dickey Mar 30, 2013 4:45 AM EDT
Internet service throughout the Middle East was disrupted this week when
three men severed fiber-optic links. Was it just an accident, or a warning
to the world about unprotected lifelines?
Maybe the three scuba divers were just idiots. Or spies. Or saboteurs. It’s
hard to tell from the Egyptian military’s statements about the men it
arrested this week for allegedly cutting an undersea fiberoptic cable
carrying vast amounts of Internet traffic between Europe, the Middle East
and Asia. But whatever the motive, the incident underscores once again just
how vulnerable global communications really are.
PAR2004073064958
TARIK TINAZAY
According to the official Egyptian news agency, the three divers said they
were doing underwater salvage work less than a kilometer off the coast from
the city of Alexandria. There have been violent protests there in recent
days, raising the question of a possible link. Religious zealots often rage
against the openness of the Internet. (Saudi Arabia is threatening to shut
down Skype and other encrypted services.) And there are always many
Egyptians who see the hand of Israel in supposedly nefarious plots. But
according to the Egyptian news report on this incident, these three were
basically just diving for junk. And when they saw a cable about the diameter
of a garden hose on the floor of the Mediterranean they decided to take a
chunk of that, too.
The effect was a little like rats chewing an electric wire, but instead of a
few lights flickering, the divers disrupted Internet service in Egypt and
far beyond. So, if that was by accident, just imagine what a terrorist might
do on purpose: 95 percent of the world’s voice and data traffic travels
through undersea cables. Only about 5 percent goes via satellites, and they
could never take up the slack if a major part of the cable infrastructure
were shut down. Just for example, more than a trillion dollars' worth of
international banking transactions is conducted through fiberoptic cables
every day.
In his 2008 book The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to the
Eavesdropping on America, author James Bamford wrote that so many fiberoptic
lines have been laid underwater in the last two decades that “the seabed now
resembles a ball of string.” And even if that’s a colorful exaggeration
(there are about 200 cable systems around the world), at the points where
the those cables come ashore, whether off Alexandria or Mumbai, or quiet
little towns on the New Jersey shore, they are at risk from ship anchors,
from people who want to tap into communications (a fairly complicated
business), and from those who want to cut them, whether for money or for
malice.
“It is naïve to assume that submarine-cable landing stations, cables,
the cable ships, and the marine depots that maintain the systems will escape
asymmetric terrorist attacks.”
Even more striking, once the cables are a few miles offshore, beyond
territorial waters, there is no law that protects them. “There is a glaring
gap in international law about destruction of cables,” says Douglas R.
Burnett, an attorney and veteran naval officer who specializes in these
issues. The international law of the sea addresses many issues about cables,
he says, “but not hostile attacks.”
An article Burnett wrote for Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute last
year was a call to action that so far has been largely unheeded. “It is
naïve,” he says, “to assume that submarine-cable landing stations, cables,
the cable ships, and the marine depots that maintain the systems will escape
asymmetric terrorist attacks.”
There are precedents. In June 2010, terrorists in the Philippines hit a
cable-landing station. An Indonesian cable was attacked as well. But the
most spectacular disruption came in March 2007 at the hands of Vietnamese
pirates. Using several boats, they went after two submarine systems just to
steal the fiberoptic cable and related equipment. That shut the systems down
entirely for 79 days. “There are known to be idiots in the world,” says
Burnett.
==========================================
(F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this
message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to
these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed
within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with
"Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.
The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The
Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain
permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials
if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria
for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies
as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four
criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is
determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not
substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use
copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS
PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment