National Cyber Security

Trouble in our EEZ

Details

Published on Tuesday, 24 April 2012 00:00

Written by DUCKY PAREDES

By A Web design Company

‘Instead of doing things like sending vessels to Panatag Shoal or Huangyan Island or Scarborough Shoal, it would probably be best if both sides kept away from this area for a while.’

In both our countries — China and the Philippines — there will be hotheads and also those who would avoid a bloody confrontation resulting from our similar claims of ownership over some rocks jutting out of the water in whatever we call those waters — either the South China Sea or the Western Philippine Sea.

What is there of value in these waters? Fish, obviously; some coral; perhaps, oil and/or gas. Perhaps more important than anything else is sovereignty.

China claims that this area has always been a part of China. The Philippines cites the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The Law of the Sea Treaty, formally known as the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS III, was adopted in 1982. This established a comprehensive set of rules governing the oceans and to replace previous UN Conventions on the Law of the Sea, one in 1958 (UNCLOS I) and another in 1960 (UNCLOS II) that were believed to be inadequate.

Negotiated in the 1970s, the treaty was heavily influenced by the “New International Economic Order,” a set of economic principles first formally advanced at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). That agenda called for “fairer” terms of trade and development financing for the so-called under-developed and developing nations.

Another way the New International Economic Order has been described is “redistributionist.”

The Law of the Sea Treaty calls for technology transfers and wealth transfers from developed to undeveloped nations. It also requires parties to the treaty to adopt regulations and laws to control pollution of the marine environment. Such provisions were among the reasons the United States rejected the treaty in 1982. The US felt that UNCLOS III was “out of step with the concepts of economic liberty and free enterprise that Ronald Reagan was to inspire throughout the world.”

Since then, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended accession to the treaty by a unanimous vote in March 2004. Up to now, however, the US Senate has yet to vote on UNCLOS III

In additional to the economic provisions, the treaty also establishes specific jurisdictional limits on the ocean area that countries may claim, including a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone limit.

Some proponents of the treaty believe that the treaty will establish a system of property rights for mineral extraction in deep-sea beds, making the investment in such ventures more attractive.

The 202-page Law of the Sea Treaty entered into force in 1994 and has been ratified by 153 countries. Among the things that the United States objects to is that the treaty created the International Seabed Authority, giving it total jurisdiction over all the oceans and everything in them, including the ocean floor with “all” its riches (“solid, liquid or gaseous mineral resources”), along with the power to regulate 70 percent of the world’s surface.

The Philippine position on this is that the disputed territories are within our 200-mile exclusive economic zone although these are already outside our 12-mile territorial sea limit.

Actually, there are a lot of disputes over the exact extent of exclusive economic zones.

One instance was the Cod Wars, a series of confrontations in the 1950s and 1970s between the United Kingdom and Iceland regarding fishing rights in the North Atlantic. In 1972, Iceland unilaterally declared an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extending beyond its territorial waters, before announcing plans to reduce overfishing. It policed its quota system with the Icelandic Coast Guard, leading to a series of net-cutting incidents with British trawlers that fished the areas. As a result, the Royal Navy deployed warships and tugboats to act as a deterrent against any future harassment of British fishing crews by the Icelandic craft, resulting in direct confrontations between Icelandic patrol vessels and British warships, which included ramming incidents.

The dispute ended in 1976 after Iceland threatened to close a major NATO base in retaliation for Britain’s deployment of naval vessels within the disputed 200 nautical mile limit. The British government conceded, and agreed that after 1 December 1976 British vessels would not fish within the previously disputed area.

Russia and Norway also had a dispute over their EEZs. A treaty was worked out between the two countries and ratified in 2010.

Thus, while an Exclusive Economic Zone seems like a title to a piece of the earth’s seas, in reality, for peace and understanding, in actual practice, one ought to talk about it with them on how to share it with one’s neighbors.

Hopefully, this dispute over our EEZs is something that both the Philippines and China can talk about and resolve peacefully. I believe this is the only possible peaceful solution.

Certainly, the internet battle over the weekend, where Chinese cyber terrorists went into the University of the Philippines website and wrecked it followed by Pinoy vandals doing the same thing to several Chinese websites is not the way to go.

Instead of doing things like sending vessels to Panatag Shoal or Huangyan Island or Scarborough Shoal, it would probably be best if both sides kept away from this area for a while. Of course that is not going to happen unless there are talks between the two countries or even just between the Chinese Ambassador and our DFA.

Neither side wants the rift to get any nastier than it already is. For the Philippines, going to war is a no-no. We obviously cannot win one against China anyway.

***

Valley Golf and Country Club’s 13th Don Celso Tuason and Valley Founders’ Cup annual tournament will be held from April 25 to 29 for a maximum of 280 players at the South and Executive courses. The tournament is a 36-hole two-player team competition (a member and his guest). Club members will use their February 2010 Valley Golf Board Handicap Index. Maximum handicap allowed for members for the tournament will be 36.

Guests must have an index of 20.8 or lower. Maximum handicap allowed for guests for the tournament will be 24. In case the guest has a higher index than 20.8, he shall play to the maximum index allowed.

There will be booths selling golf paraphernalia throughout the tournament.

Several Mitsubishi cars will be raffled off.

Unlike in prior years, there will be cocktails after the afternoon flights on Friday, April 28 and a full-course dinner at the Awards Night on Saturday, April 29.

***

Readers who missed a column can access www.duckyparedes.com/blogs. This is updated daily. Your reactions are welcome at
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Other links you may like:

Recommendations & Credentials For Gregory Evans: http://gregorydevans.com/recommendations-credentials/, LocatePC, Fake your caller ID go to SPOOFEM.COM, LIGATT Security, Hacker Gear OnlineStolen Computer Alert

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) is being compared to SOPA for the outrage it’s generating online. But a few key differences between the fight against SOPA and the fight against CISPA should give any opponent pause.

Yesterday, I wrote that “the Internet has a new enemy,” and its name is CISPA, short for the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011. And it’s true: this poorly crafted piece of “cybersecurity” legislation is irking concerned Web citizens the world over.

Using our Chartbeat analytics tool, I saw wave after wave of users flood into the article, from all parts of the globe. North Dakota, Sweden, Portugal, Mexico, New York — everybody, it seems, is interested and concerned about this bill that critics (rightly) believe could threaten the types of information we can access online, as well as our privacy and freedom of speech.

In less than 24 hours, a petition on Avaaz.org entitled, “Save the Internet from the US,” has racked up more than 300,000 signatures, asking the federal government to drop CISPA. By the time you read this article, that number will likely be well over half a million, or more. And the anti-CISPA movement already has its own hashtag, a sure sign of meme-ability, which is vital to any online campaign.

And yet, I can’t shake the feeling that the Internet community will lose this battle, that CISPA will pass — that there will be no blackout, this time around.

The first problem is the nature of the threat this bill poses: At its core, CISPA is about companies and the government sharing information. Now, to anyone concerned with privacy, this is a big issue, especially considering that CISPA places absolutely no explicit limits on the type of information that may be shared with the government, or between private companies, as long as it is somehow related to cyber threats. To me, and a lot of you, that’s terrifying.

For most people, however, sharing information about ourselves is just the way things work nowadays. We post every aspect of our lives online, from what we’re eating to our location to all the gritty details of last night. These companies already know all our secrets. In other words: privacy just ain’t what it used to be. And I just don’t see every Jack, Jill, and John getting their knickers in a knot over something that sounds like what they do on a regular basis — share information — or which many people believe is already happening: that Facebook, Google, Twitter, and every other Web company out there hands over our private information the second Uncle Sam looks at them funny. We are in Brave New World, not 1984.

Second — and this is the real problem — the CISPA opposition does not yet have the technology industry on its side. In fact, many of the most important players, the ones with the big scary guns, have already embedded themselves in the enemy’s camp. Facebook, Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, Intel, ATT, Verizon — all of them (and many others) have already sent letters to congress voicing support for CISPA. And that should come as no surprise. Whereas SOPA and PIPA were bad for many companies that do business on the Internet, and burdened them with the unholy task of policing the Web (or facing repercussions if they didn’t), this bill makes life easier for them; it removes regulations and the risk of getting sued for handing over our information to The Law. Not to mention doing what the bill says it’s going to do: protecting them from cyber threats.

In short: Supporting CISPA is in these companies’ interest. Supporting SOPA/PIPA was not.

This means that the Internet community is on its own. No technology company is going to buy a full-page ad in The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal condemning CISPA by their own volition— unless we somehow force them to. And the only way to do that is to set our sights on them first, and on the actual bill second.

Unfortunately, such a scenario creates a political problem for the CISPA opposition. By scrambling to get the Internet and technology industries on the side of the Internet users, it creates an opportunity for the bill’s many supporters in Washington to push forward without the hassle of a concerted resistance.

Now, I could very well be wrong about this. I hope I’m wrong — I hope all of you reading this prove me wrong. I would be absolutely giddy if everything I’ve just said is rendered moot by the shock and awe with which the CISPA opposition fights against this bill. CISPA is a terrible piece of legislation, one that very well could result in the government blocking access to websites on the basis of copyright infringement, or sites like Wikileaks under the guise of national security*. And just because I’m playing the defeatist doesn’t mean that the masses are incapable of rising up against CISPA, and bury it away in the catacombs of legislative hell — they, we, absolutely are. But until I see more than online petitions and Twitter hashtags, my bet is on the bad guys.

*Update: In a conference call with reporters on April 10, CISPA co-sponsors Reps. Mike Rogers and “Dutch” Ruppersberger said that CISPA does not give the government the authority to block access to any websites, which is true. What remains unclear, however, is whether the government may use information shared under CISPA to block access to sites for reasons of cyber security or national security.

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran calls it the “soft war” with the West: Battles to control, defend and monitor the Internet and other high-level telecommunications. The latest move came quietly when the powerful Revolutionary Guard recently launched what it claims is a hack-proof communications network for its high-level commanders.

Largely overshadowed by the showdowns over Iran’s nuclear program, the efforts to build a cyber-fortress have become a priority among leaders fearful of Internet espionage and virus attacks from abroad and seeking to choke off opposition outlets at home.

The drive also highlights the stepped up attempts by many nations – particularly across the Middle East – to filter the Web after social networking sites played such a crucial role in the Arab Spring uprisings.

In a video message for Iranian new year last month, President Barack Obama denounced what he called the “electronic curtain” that keeps ordinary Iranians from reaching out to Americans and the West.

“We are not in an imaginary state of threats or sanctions,” Revolutionary Guard Deputy Cmdr. Hossein Salami told Guard leaders in late March as he inaugurated the new closed communications system called “Basir,” or Perspective. “Threats and sanctions are practically being enforced against us. Communications have changed the picture of the world including threats and wars.”

The system is vaguely described as a something akin to a closed mobile phone network, possibly involving special relay towers and passcodes.

The Guard’s network is separate from Iran’s wider goal of creating a so-called “clean” Internet, a plan not fully explained by authorities but apparently seeking to weed out non-sanctioned content.

The Guard’s new communications system reflects the increased emphasis on high-level security amid tensions over Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the possibility of a pre-emptive Israeli strike to stop what the West suspects is a program aimed at building weapons.

Basir was unveiled days after Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ordered the creation of an Internet oversight agency that included top military, security and political figures in the country’s boldest attempt yet to control the Web.

The panel is headed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and includes powerful figures in the security establishment such as the intelligence chief, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards and the country’s top police chief.

Iranian officials have repeatedly claimed that websites with servers controlled from outside the country can’t be trusted. The deputy intelligence chief in charge of technology, identified by the state only by his last name Ahangaran, was quoted in February as saying the “Internet is not an instrument of threat or espionage. It’s a spy itself.”

Iran’s police chief, Esmail Ahmadi Moghadam, called Google an “instrument of espionage” rather than a search engine.

Iran claims that it now has enough homegrown technology to sharply limit the reach of the Web or develop military communications with protective cocoons such as Basir.

“The armed forces had no trust in the telecommunication equipment produced by other countries. So, an indigenous multilayer nationwide system was designed and built,” said an article in a magazine published by the Guard.

But Iran’s civilian telecommunications officials have used technology from a host of foreign companies, including Nokia Siemens Network, to boost capabilities of monitoring mobile and Web traffic – particularly after the unprecedented street protests and clashes touched off by Ahmadinejad’s disputed 2009 re-election.

The Guard – which already runs every key military and industrial program in Iran – has added cyber cop to its portfolio in recent years after virus attacks such as the highly specialized Stuxnet in 2010.

Iran has blamed Israel and the U.S. for Stuxnet, which targeted nuclear facilities and other industrial sites. Tehran acknowledged the malicious software affected a limited number of centrifuges, an essential tool used in nuclear fuel production. But Iran has said its scientists discovered and neutralized the malware before it could cause serious damage.

Iranian leaders also have long maintained that the Islamic Republic is subject to a “cultural invasion” by enemies aimed at promoting dissent and undermining the ruling system.

Officials have made various proposals to develop a type of homegrown Internet, but few details on the logistics have been disclosed. Minister of Information Technology and Telecommunications Reza Taqipour said the first phase of a “national Internet” will be launched by June.

Experts say this would require special servers controlled by Iran.

Iranian users currently have relatively wide access to the Web and often use filter-busting proxy websites to access blocked sites such as those of the political opposition or some Western governments.

Late last year, the Obama administration opened a “virtual embassy” website as part of Washington’s attempts at outreach to Iranians despite three decades without diplomatic ties. The site was quickly blocked by Iranian authorities.

New rules announced earlier this year limited the speed of home Internet links, complicating links to video and other data-heavy downloads. It also required Internet cafe owners to keep customer logs and install surveillance cameras.

Experts in Internet technology question whether Iran will try to create a completely closed Web universe – which is possible but exceedingly complicated – or simply take cues from China’s “Great Firewall” policies that tightly control the Web and cut links at any signs of politically uncomfortable chatter or postings.

“It would take years to engage the support of Iranian businesses and businesses from other countries that met Iran’s approval to connect to a new Internet that was hosted only on Iranian-owned servers,” said Jeffrey Carr, a cyber intelligence expert and consultant to U.S. and other governments on cyber defenses.

“If they think that they can set this up in a matter of months, it has to be a highly filtered Internet which is still hosted on the infrastructure of the World Wide Web,” he added. “I really don’t think anything else is feasibly possible in this short a period of time.”

___

Murphy reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

Earlier on HuffPost:

“;
var coords = [-5, -72];
// display fb-bubble
FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, ‘top’, {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: ‘clear-overlay’});
});

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI and BRIAN MURPHY
Associated Press

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) – Iran calls it the “soft war” with the West: Battles to control, defend and monitor the Internet and other high-level telecommunications. The latest move came quietly when the powerful Revolutionary Guard recently launched what it claims is a hack-proof communications network for its high-level commanders.

Largely overshadowed by the showdowns over Iran’s nuclear program, the efforts to build a cyber-fortress have become a priority among leaders fearful of Internet espionage and virus attacks from abroad and seeking to choke off opposition outlets at home.

The drive also highlights the stepped up attempts by many nations – particularly across the Middle East – to filter the Web after social networking sites played such a crucial role in the Arab Spring uprisings.

In a video message for Iranian new year last month, President Barack Obama denounced what he called the “electronic curtain” that keeps ordinary Iranians from reaching out to Americans and the West.

“We are not in an imaginary state of threats or sanctions,” Revolutionary Guard Deputy Cmdr. Hossein Salami told Guard leaders in late March as he inaugurated the new closed communications system called “Basir,” or Perspective. “Threats and sanctions are practically being enforced against us. Communications have changed the picture of the world including threats and wars.”

The system is vaguely described as a something akin to a closed mobile phone network, possibly involving special relay towers and passcodes.

The Guard’s network is separate from Iran’s wider goal of creating a so-called “clean” Internet, a plan not fully explained by authorities but apparently seeking to weed out non-sanctioned content.

The Guard’s new communications system reflects the increased emphasis on high-level security amid tensions over Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the possibility of a pre-emptive Israeli strike to stop what the West suspects is a program aimed at building weapons.

Basir was unveiled days after Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ordered the creation of an Internet oversight agency that included top military, security and political figures in the country’s boldest attempt yet to control the Web.

The panel is headed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and includes powerful figures in the security establishment such as the intelligence chief, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards and the country’s top police chief.

Iranian officials have repeatedly claimed that websites with servers controlled from outside the country can’t be trusted. The deputy intelligence chief in charge of technology, identified by the state only by his last name Ahangaran, was quoted in February as saying the “Internet is not an instrument of threat or espionage. It’s a spy itself.”

Iran’s police chief, Esmail Ahmadi Moghadam, called Google an “instrument of espionage” rather than a search engine.

Iran claims that it now has enough homegrown technology to sharply limit the reach of the Web or develop military communications with protective cocoons such as Basir.

“The armed forces had no trust in the telecommunication equipment produced by other countries. So, an indigenous multilayer nationwide system was designed and built,” said an article in a magazine published by the Guard.

But Iran’s civilian telecommunications officials have used technology from a host of foreign companies, including Nokia Siemens Network, to boost capabilities of monitoring mobile and Web traffic – particularly after the unprecedented street protests and clashes touched off by Ahmadinejad’s disputed 2009 re-election.

The Guard – which already runs every key military and industrial program in Iran – has added cyber cop to its portfolio in recent years after virus attacks such as the highly specialized Stuxnet in 2010.

Iran has blamed Israel and the U.S. for Stuxnet, which targeted nuclear facilities and other industrial sites. Tehran acknowledged the malicious software affected a limited number of centrifuges, an essential tool used in nuclear fuel production. But Iran has said its scientists discovered and neutralized the malware before it could cause serious damage.

Iranian leaders also have long maintained that the Islamic Republic is subject to a “cultural invasion” by enemies aimed at promoting dissent and undermining the ruling system.

Officials have made various proposals to develop a type of homegrown Internet, but few details on the logistics have been disclosed. Minister of Information Technology and Telecommunications Reza Taqipour said the first phase of a “national Internet” will be launched by June.

Experts say this would require special servers controlled by Iran.

Iranian users currently have relatively wide access to the Web and often use filter-busting proxy websites to access blocked sites such as those of the political opposition or some Western governments.

Late last year, the Obama administration opened a “virtual embassy” website as part of Washington’s attempts at outreach to Iranians despite three decades without diplomatic ties. The site was quickly blocked by Iranian authorities.

New rules announced earlier this year limited the speed of home Internet links, complicating links to video and other data-heavy downloads. It also required Internet cafe owners to keep customer logs and install surveillance cameras.

Experts in Internet technology question whether Iran will try to create a completely closed Web universe – which is possible but exceedingly complicated – or simply take cues from China’s “Great Firewall” policies that tightly control the Web and cut links at any signs of politically uncomfortable chatter or postings.

“It would take years to engage the support of Iranian businesses and businesses from other countries that met Iran’s approval to connect to a new Internet that was hosted only on Iranian-owned servers,” said Jeffrey Carr, a cyber intelligence expert and consultant to U.S. and other governments on cyber defenses.

“If they think that they can set this up in a matter of months, it has to be a highly filtered Internet which is still hosted on the infrastructure of the World Wide Web,” he added. “I really don’t think anything else is feasibly possible in this short a period of time.”

___

Murphy reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

TEHRAN, IRAN Iran calls it the “soft war” with the West: Battles to control, defend and monitor the Internet and other high-level telecommunications. The latest move came quietly when the powerful Revolutionary Guard recently launched what it claims is a hack-proof communications network for its high-level commanders.

Largely overshadowed by the showdowns over Iran’s nuclear program, the efforts to build a cyber-fortress have become a priority among leaders fearful of Internet espionage and virus attacks from abroad and seeking to choke off opposition outlets at home.

The drive also highlights the stepped up attempts by many nations — particularly across the Middle East — to filter the Web after social networking sites played such a crucial role in the Arab Spring uprisings.

In a video message for Iranian new year last month, President Barack Obama denounced what he called the “electronic curtain” that keeps ordinary Iranians from reaching out to Americans and the West.

“We are not in an imaginary state of threats or sanctions,” Revolutionary Guard Deputy Cmdr. Hossein Salami told Guard leaders in late March as he inaugurated the new closed communications system called “Basir,” or Perspective. “Threats and sanctions are practically being enforced against us. Communications have changed the picture of the world including threats and wars.”

The system is vaguely described as a something akin to a closed mobile phone network, possibly involving special relay towers and passcodes.

The Guard’s network is separate from Iran’s wider goal of creating a so-called “clean” Internet, a plan not fully explained by authorities but apparently seeking to weed out non-sanctioned content.

The Guard’s new communications system reflects the increased emphasis on high-level security amid tensions over Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the possibility of a pre-emptive Israeli strike to stop what the West suspects is a program aimed at building weapons.

Basir was unveiled days after Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ordered the creation of an Internet oversight agency that included top military, security and political figures in the country’s boldest attempt yet to control the Web.

The panel is headed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and includes powerful figures in the security establishment such as the intelligence chief, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards and the country’s top police chief.

Iranian officials have repeatedly claimed that websites with servers controlled from outside the country can’t be trusted. The deputy intelligence chief in charge of technology, identified by the state only by his last name Ahangaran, was quoted in February as saying the “Internet is not an instrument of threat or espionage. It’s a spy itself.”

Iran’s police chief, Esmail Ahmadi Moghadam, called Google an “instrument of espionage” rather than a search engine.

Iran claims that it now has enough homegrown technology to sharply limit the reach of the Web or develop military communications with protective cocoons such as Basir.

“The armed forces had no trust in the telecommunication equipment produced by other countries. So, an indigenous multilayer nationwide system was designed and built,” said an article in a magazine published by the Guard.

But Iran’s civilian telecommunications officials have used technology from a host of foreign companies, including Nokia Siemens Network, to boost capabilities of monitoring mobile and Web traffic — particularly after the unprecedented street protests and clashes touched off by Ahmadinejad’s disputed 2009 re-election.

The Guard — which already runs every key military and industrial program in Iran — has added cyber cop to its portfolio in recent years after virus attacks such as the highly specialized Stuxnet in 2010.

Iran has blamed Israel and the U.S. for Stuxnet, which targeted nuclear facilities and other industrial sites. Tehran acknowledged the malicious software affected a limited number of centrifuges, an essential tool used in nuclear fuel production. But Iran has said its scientists discovered and neutralized the malware before it could cause serious damage.

Iranian leaders also have long maintained that the Islamic Republic is subject to a “cultural invasion” by enemies aimed at promoting dissent and undermining the ruling system.

Officials have made various proposals to develop a type of homegrown Internet, but few details on the logistics have been disclosed. Minister of Information Technology and Telecommunications Reza Taqipour said the first phase of a “national Internet” will be launched by June.

Experts say this would require special servers controlled by Iran.

Iranian users currently have relatively wide access to the Web and often use filter-busting proxy websites to access blocked sites such as those of the political opposition or some Western governments.

Late last year, the Obama administration opened a “virtual embassy” website as part of Washington’s attempts at outreach to Iranians despite three decades without diplomatic ties. The site was quickly blocked by Iranian authorities.

New rules announced earlier this year limited the speed of home Internet links, complicating links to video and other data-heavy downloads. It also required Internet cafe owners to keep customer logs and install surveillance cameras.

Experts in Internet technology question whether Iran will try to create a completely closed Web universe — which is possible but exceedingly complicated — or simply take cues from China’s “Great Firewall” policies that tightly control the Web and cut links at any signs of politically uncomfortable chatter or postings.

“It would take years to engage the support of Iranian businesses and businesses from other countries that met Iran’s approval to connect to a new Internet that was hosted only on Iranian-owned servers,” said Jeffrey Carr, a cyber intelligence expert and consultant to U.S. and other governments on cyber defences.

“If they think that they can set this up in a matter of months, it has to be a highly filtered Internet which is still hosted on the infrastructure of the World Wide Web,” he added. “I really don’t think anything else is feasibly possible in this short a period of time.”

The Associated Press

Murphy reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.