1. 1
Benjamin A. Morley
GLOA 600 Research Paper
May 9, 2012
Cyber Security and the State in the Age of Globalization
In the age of Globalization, advances in communications and information technology
have created a new field of conflict that threatens the traditional power of the Nation State and
empowers the individual. Information technology is a new tool for waging conflicts, whether
between individual, Nation States, or even between individuals and the Nation State. The use of
cyber weapons like hacking gives the aggressor global strike capacity in real time, while
rendering conventional security measures ineffective. The best missile defense shield is less
effective at deterring a faceless cyber enemy that can strike from anywhere in the globe and
damage infrastructure without resorting to conventional warfare. Corrupt regimes can crumble
from the forces of Twitter and the Iphone even after enduring for decades with armed force.
Individuals can now bring down the powerful in a society, attack nations, or even wield political
power that was impossible before the introduction of advanced information technologies.
Despite being a new threat to the balance of power, the very system of Globalization, the
interconnections that connect the globe, makes conventional controls over power less useful and
potentially obsolete.
Cyber space is an artificial scape created by and maintained over the workings of
computer systems and their exchange of data. It’s artificial but it also has the unique
characteristic of allowing travel to anywhere in the scape free of physical borders and open

2. 2
access normally to anyone who can connect to it. By its nature cyber space is borderless and
relatively lawless in the regard that no one nation state has full control or jurisdiction over the
scape and even when laws are put on the books in a given nation state, they are hard to enforce in
the whole of cyber space. Powerful nation states like the United States and China have some
influence, but even this influence can be checked as the blatant disregard for intellectual property
rights is rampant on the Internet in sites like Pirates’ Bay and torrentz.eu (Houghton, 2011). In
this paper, cyber crime and cyber conflict will be analyzed on several levels starting from
individuals targeting each other and will progress to nation states targeting each other.
One new use for information technology, cell phones, the Internet, social media, etc., is to
bully others. Cyber bullying is the use of social media and other forms of media based
technology to torment a victim in a manner identical to conventional forms of bullying. This
might manifest in posting rumors about the victim on chat forums, emailing or texting
threatening messages, and otherwise abusing the victim by the use of media. The case of the
suicide of Phoebe Prince, a freshman in South Headley high school in Massachusetts in 2010,
was an example of bullies coordinating efforts on social websites and targeting Ms. Prince on a
daily basis. While the physical abuse was prominent, the bullies were using media to attack Ms.
Prince. The resulting bullying was such that Ms. Prince committed suicide rather than face
anymore of the torments (Eckholm & Zezima, 2010). This is just one example of information
technology being used to attack others, but when individuals conglomerate into bands or
organizations, their ability to attack other people grows.
Besides using social websites to terrorize individuals, information technology can make
the humiliation and pain of bullying and abuse a truly global experience. When some
relationships turn sour, previously secret intimate information can become public by one of the

3. 3
ex-lovers in a bid to humiliate the other. With the Internet, cell phones, and general ease of
uploading personal information anonymously, this takes on a new level of abuse. There are
countless websites catering to revenge on the Internet, the following is one example of such a
website that combined pornography, invasion of privacy, and public exposure to help angry ex-
lovers take revenge. People used the site, IsAnyoneUp.com to get revenge on their ex lovers by
posting pornographic photos for public viewing. Along with photos, personal information, links
to social websites, and the victim’s locations were posted on the site. Effectively the victim
would have not just their picture on-line, but their full name, home address, age, and their social
and Internet life exposed for anyone visiting the site. The site also catered to a global audience,
making the exposure global. The founder of the site, Hunter Moore, gave control to the site to
Bullyville.com, an anti-bullying website, after trouble with under aged victims winding up on the
site. Bullyville later took down the site to stop more posts on it, claiming the site itself was part
of on-line abuse (Lee 2012).
Individuals in a society can have varying degrees of prestige, power, and wealth, but with
new information technologies and cyber space, every individual has the power to target, damage,
or destroy strangers and people in positions of power that would have otherwise been
unassailable by normal means, legal or otherwise. Rupert Murdoch was the owner of The Sun
website, is number twenty four on Forbes’ list of the most powerful people in the world, and runs
a media empire (“Rupert murdoch,” 2012). Yet LulzSec, a hacker group that splintered from
Anonymous, hacked Murdoch’s the Sun website and vandalized it with reports of his death and
claims of having sensitive emails and information. News International, a media organization
owned by Murdoch, was also hacked and several sites from the organization were taken down
(Arthur, Quinn & Godfrey, 2011). This attack was an example of how even the powerful in

4. 4
society are at risk of attack with the advances in information technology. Not all attacks by
individuals are aimed at powerful members of society.
The group Anonymous proved that security was at risk by rising information technology
in 2008 when members hacked and released several emails from the email account of then
governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. The hackings occurred during allegations of Mrs. Palin using
her personal email to conduct governmental business and in a scandal involving her brother-in-
law and the public safety inspector. The hacker group gave the stolen emails to Wiki Leaks for
publishing. The resulting uproar cased more attention to be focused on Mrs. Palin during the
2008 race for the Presidency when she ran with John McCain. The hackers are believed to have
used either widely available information to guess Palin’s password or a Trojan, a program that
captured Palin’s keystrokes and allowed them to type her password (Shear & Vick, 2008).
Even multinational corporations are possible targets despite their ability to move from
one country to another. Sony was hacked by several anonymous hackers April 19, 2011, and the
Play Station Network was down for several days as Sony was repairing the network. One of the
given reasons by the hackers for attacking the network was the new firmware called a Root kit,
which Sony had installed which allowed for remote updates whenever the system without the
user’s knowledge. It was viewed as an invasion of privacy and possible motive for the attacks.
The corporation was quick to blame the group Anonymous for the attack, but Anonymous has
denied involvement. What made this attack so damaging was the response Sony took after the
attacks, in which users had their credit cards, passwords, accounts, and other personal data. It
took Sony a week to inform users of the attacks and had actually kept the system off line to
rebuild the security system (Sangani 2011: 76-7). While they were rebuilding, the personal data
could have been sold to private individuals or used by the hackers.

5. 5
The individual alone is normally not thought of as a threat to a nation state, but improved
information technology has given individuals the ability to gather, coordinate, and to launch both
violent and non violent attacks against oppressive governments. The group Anonymous is one
example of an organization putting a regime on the defensive by cyber attack. In a cyber attack
by Anonymous, the Zimbabwean government and finance ministry websites were both attacked
with a distributed denial of service attack. There were two reasons for the attacks, to protest the
Zimbabwean government’s actions, and for the attack was the news of a 15 million dollar lawsuit
against a The Standard, a local newspaper. The Standard had published an article exposing
Grace Mugabe for her role in the illicit diamonds trade, citing a leaked embassy cable that was
published on Wiki Leaks. The newspaper was charged by the government for defaming Grace
Mugabe (Ragan 2010). This case was of the government being on the defensive, but not all
governments are on the receiving end of cyber attacks, some attack their own people with
information technology.
During the Tunisian revolution, the Tunisian government had censored the Internet and
used targeted phishing to steal passwords and information of Tunisians in order to spy on them
and to hack websites that criticized the State. The Tunisian government has hacked en masse
web sites before, but what made their phishing attack different was the malware used by the
government to intercept information rather than hacking sites like Google or Facebook (Ryan
2011). The use of information technology by the regime was meant to curb dissent and control
the population, usually by censorship and hacking accounts and blogs. Nations like China use
extensive censoring to curb the freedoms of their people online, but the nature of the Internet and
information technology makes such measures at best a temporary fix.

6. 6
Not all attacks on a nation state are clearly from hacker organizations or from nation
states. In the case of Estonia, the culprits could be from both groups, such as State sponsored
hackers or hackers operating inside a nation state but otherwise not sanctioned and funded by the
government. In the week before the attack, the Estonian government was removing a statue
dedicated to the war dead of the Soviets in World War Two, a move that enraged many Russians
both in Estonia and in Russia. The local Estonians called for the removal of the statue believing
it was a reminder of Soviet dominance in the country and wanted it removed for decades but
didn’t because of threats from Russia. When the Estonian government removed the statue,
Russian chat forums and social sites were alit with anger and talk of changing Estonian policy.
The next few days saw an attack on Estonia’s cyber infrastructure with multiple sites down,
banks and news organizations and government sites were all targeted and disabled or taken
down. The damage was extensive; the country was effectively cut off from the rest of the cyber
world despite having been labeled the “most wired country in Europe” and the hackers were able
to use servers from all over the world to attack the government of Estonia. The attacks
highlighted a major weakness in Estonia’s security apparatus because of the potential for the
long term damage of the attacks and the fact it was unexpected by the government (Davis 2007:
1-9).
The most dangerous form of information based conflicts is Information Warfare, the use
of information technologies as a tool to wage war similar to any other tool in a warfare setting
such as bombs or WMDs. Unlike conventional wars, resulting in massive destruction of
infrastructure, loss of lives, and other traits of war, information warfare is more precise and
harder for governments to defend against than conventional weapons. Nations such as Russia,

7. 7
the United States, and China have devoted time and resources to cultivating effective cyber
based and information based weapons and defenses.
The Chinese government is currently pursuing cyber warfare options in their military to
make up for a less advanced mechanized military compared to the United States, a nation they
view as a rival. Information warfare is considered “bloodless” and less likely to cause massive
collateral damage by the People’s Liberation Army and more likely a first strike tool. As part of
this new form of warfare, the Chinese military is training militias in information warfare tactics
and psychological warfare as part of their capacity to attack decision making and perception
(Krekel 2009: 19-20). The Chinese government is aware of the potentially dangerous diplomatic
fallout of having cyber warfare militias and weapons and has taken steps to keep the units from
leaking information about new weapons (Krekel 2009: 36). The Chinese government also
engages in cyber espionage to gain unclassified but sensitive information from nations like the
United States to gain advances technologically and militarily (Krekel 2009: 50-3).
These new developments have not gone unnoticed by the United States and other nations.
The United States and China are currently engaged in cyber war games to help ease tensions and
to promote better cooperation and understanding. This is part of a new effort by the United
States to engage in diplomacy and to avoid cyber war with China while having a better
understanding of how these new weapons could work. For the Chinese government the
accusations of being involved in cyber attacks and espionage are damaging to their government,
which claims to have been subject to many such attacks. They also dismiss the claims they were
responsible for the attacks on the United States and private firms. The Pentagon and the FBI
have not released the names of the military officials engaged in these games and have raised
alarms about the growing strength and scale of these attacks (Hopkins 2012).

8. 8
Cyber warfare also incorporates the private individual and group with the nation state.
The case of Estonia is probably one example of private individuals working for State interests in
attacking a rival, as a matter of both power projection and to strike Estonia for an insult to the
national pride of Russians. China also has a similar relationship, albeit a tenuous one, with their
community of hackers. Known for supporting illegal hacking activities, the “Black Hat”
community in China supply hacking software to the State to exploit weaknesses in new software
before the weaknesses are known to developers, though the hackers sometimes cause more
damage to Chinese interests than foreign interests (Krekel 2009: 7-8). The Black hat community
engaged in politically motivated attacks and the “hacker wars” from 1999-2002, initially with the
support of the Chinese government. After the Chinese government began cracking down, the
hackers changed their roles and many started working with companies and the government on
research (Krekel 2009: 37-8).
In each case, information technology has been used to re-evaluate the power of
individuals, whether they’re nation states, private firms, or individuals. In the case of the bullies
and the Internet, the power to terrorize others now extends beyond the physical world and people
need not be in the same country anymore to help humiliate of hurt someone. Words become
typed responses, insults become more personal while the perpetrators become more obscure.
New forms of bullying are possible; the victims of these attacks can live in different countries
and never have met but suffer the same abuse from one or more bullies, who are similarly
separated by thousands of miles and language and culture barriers.
More awareness is being raised about the dangers of cyber bullying; legal questions are
being raised about bullying. In Georgia, a teen had sued her cyber bullies for libel due to the
fake Facebook profile her bullies made about her. In Canada and parts of the United States,

9. 9
cyber bullies can be sued for their activities or censored if the actions are by students (Bielski
2012). New programs are being created to help people track the IP addresses of spam and other
forms of marketing as well as potential scammers. One response to on-line scamming is a
practice called “scam baiting” in which a scammer is tricked by the potential victim into various
time wasting activities and ends up losing the chance to scam others as scam baiters have set up
warning sites detailing their scam baiting schemes and the tactics such scammers use.
For private firms, their power is greater with their ability to collect private data using
various programs and software allows them more marketing tools to specialize their ads to
individuals while tracking their spending habits and visits online via “cookies”. Yet hacking
attacks and cyber espionage are more damaging to firms than they usually are to nation states
because of the costs firms take in just for cyber security. Cyber attacks are particularly
devastating to the private sector, with more than 85-90% of the Internet in private sector control
rather than government control. Unlike nation states, private firms have no real recourse to stop
hacking from nation states such as China due to the fact they’re not governments and lack
militaries of their own. The only real recourse a firm has is to pressure governments to try and
deal with states that hack the firm for business secrets.
Nation states have the power to oppress their own people, or another population if they
wished, because of their greater access to state resources for developing cyber tools. Cyber war
is both a real and very dangerous development of information technology, as nation states can be
crippled without using conventional weapons such as bombs. While not directly as
environmentally damaging and immediately intimidating, cyber weapons can trump nuclear
weapons by simply disabling the nation’s energy infrastructure and information hubs, as part of
the current strategy of the Chinese. The potential damage from cyber war is as devastating as

10. 10
conventional warfare, as the case of Estonia has shown. In just a few days, many major systems
were shut down through distributed denial of service attacks and hacking, including critical
infrastructures such as bank and media.
The government of the U.K. and private firms are now trying to work together to improve
cyber security for both private firms and the government. This step towards government and
private sector cooperation is hampered by the economic crisis has created budget shortfalls for
the government. Yet for private firms, some of their security technologies have practical
applications and could be sold commercially, allowing for some funding to be channeled to the
efforts of the government to provide extra security and assistance for the firms. The government
is working with the private sector because of the stakes; about 6% of GDP for the U.K. comes
from Internet related businesses, more than utilities or agriculture and will be a source of jobs in
the future ("Gchq to help," 2011). The partnership with private firms also allows the government
to create new incentives for business to research security technology that might cost the
government more to research on its own, whether it’s new cyber security technology or possible
cyber weapons.
Non state actors can effectively launch their own war against a nation, making retaliatory
attacks dangerous if the aggressor cannot be readily identified. In the case of Estonia, some of
the Internet activity was traced to Russia, other traces shown that the attackers were in the United
States. Similar, but less intensive, attacks in the United States were traced to China, Israel, and
other nations. The technology to hide or change an IP address location is readily available and
easily used, meaning an attacker can come from any location in the world that is wired.
Attackers can be anywhere and nowhere at once, attacking from one nation while throwing the
trail to many other nations. Russia reserves the right to retaliate against a cyber attack with

11. 11
nuclear weapons according to the Russian government (Shackelford 2008: 215). The response
itself could damage a nation that had nothing to do with the actual attacks, creating a war under
false pretenses. Other nations, like China, do not have a clear definition of what could lead to
physical retaliation for a cyber threat and to what scale. Grounds for war can be anything from
disabling the government’s sanitation to stealing secrets to even angering the leadership.
Cyber war is difficult to contend with under international law because much of the
Internet is not policed by the State and in private hands. State sponsored hackers might attack
another country but remain in the sponsor to avoid prosecution or to receive directions. Yet
autonomous groups could attack nation states without the sponsorship of a State. For nation
states to be “responsible” for a cyber attack, all the attackers need is to have the IP address of the
nation state registered for the source of the attacks. This makes accusations of cyber attacks and
waging cyber war dangerous because of the difficulty of proving the claim without offending and
possibly provoking the supposedly offending nation state.
The Chinese government is probably spying and testing cyber weapons, but the problem
with claiming a State is responsible for all of the attacks is that hacking attacks are hard to pin
down and it could be private actors within the national boundaries of the State that are acting on
their own, and the attacks will still look as if they came from China even if the State did not
sanction the attacks (Hopkins 2012). While openly criticizing the Chinese government could
bring light to potential cyber espionage, such actions are possible sources of provocation and
could be used to incite the hacker communities in China and even outside of China to attack an
accusing nation state like the U.S.A. even if the government did not authorize the attacks. The
actors for cyber war therefore can be driven to attack even if hostilities between governments
and nation states remain simply accusations and words. In the case of China, open criticism can

12. 12
lead to cyber attacks, with the case of Estonia it was a perceived insult to Russians. In both cases
the nation state doesn’t need to declare a cyber war or list offenses since the actual actors in a
cyber war can vary in their motivations and what constitutes an act of war can vary with the
actors.
Yet the suggested solutions from Russia and China are a form of arms control that would
require greater transparency between governments in developing cyber tools and potential
weapons. The United States and the United Kingdom have both suggested a form of
international cooperation and harmonization of laws dealing with cyberspace, a proposal China
and Russia find unsuitable. The infrastructure of the United States is extremely vulnerable to
cyber attacks, one example being energy and utilities. New laws are being proposed and passed
in many nations to deal with cyber based attacks on a domestic level, such as with cyber bullying
and identity theft, but international consensus on how to govern cyberspace is lacking. Besides
the problem of the majority of cyberspace being in private hands, nation states still try to
influence the Internet for their own benefit, making a universal law governing the Internet an
improbable task.
This brings up the dangers of proliferation of cyber weapons amongst non state actors
such as organized crime and terrorists. Even if nation states were to agree to universal laws
governing the Internet, the knowledge of cyber weapons and the rate at which new software and
information technologies are developed makes a new set of difficulties for nation states
attempting to enforce such laws. As was the proliferation of nuclear weapons and small arms in
previous decades, so to have cyber weapons and the knowledge to use software for purposes
counter to State interests have spread and are easier to acquire. The very nature of the Internet is
probably one of the biggest hurdles to universal governance and security because of the nature of

13. 13
the Internet as a non physical space, an imagined community for which users can interact across
barriers such as national boundaries. Information travels quickly and the global economy is built
on ease of capital, information, and communication flows. This means the State eases their
restrictions and regulations, but with this easing there is no governmental body to rule over a
highly privatized Internet and many nation states will not want to sacrifice their sovereignty for
some governance over the Internet. The very success of the many forms of globalization,
particularly of economic liberalization and the defense of state sovereignty, also helps to
maintain the power imbalance that comes from a free and open Internet.
The nature of power has changed since the earliest city states of Sumer more than 6,000
years ago to the modern global society, the number of actors have increased along with the
interconnections that helped mediate the balance of power in the past several thousand years. Up
until the emergence of entities like the private firm, nation states held the monopoly on power.
With the emergence of the Internet and the increasing interconnections of State and non State
actors for economic, political, and social exchanges, the balance of power shifted from the
complete State monopoly to one of ever changing power relations. The individual now can
challenge a nation state, a company, or even attack other individuals, all from the safety and
anonymity of the Internet.
No longer are aggressors so clear and identifiable, nor are the powerful weapons simply
the latest nuclear bombs or most powerful rifles. A simple computer virus created by a
collective of hackers in multiple countries can pose a military threat to a powerful nation state.
Yet the balance of power remains mostly with powerful nation states that have the resources,
talent, and time to develop and empower their cyber presence. What has changed from earlier
eras is that conventional arsenals are not the only measures of power. The very system of

14. 14
Globalization, the interconnections of economics, politics, and people, has given some of that
power to those capable of using information technology, whether they’re individuals, private
firms, nation states, or even trans state entities. The modern balance of power is now in the
hands of those who are best situated to use the connections of Globalization to their own benefit.
In conclusion, the new advances in information technology have allowed for a rewriting
of the balance of power. Originally a nation state had the monopoly on power because of a
massive military force, but new advances of the Internet and software have permeated most
things in life, including the military and the nation state. Anyone with the knowledge and time
and a computer can attack a nation state, a private firm, or become a force in the global
community. Globalization, the series of various global interconnections such as technology and
economics, laid the roadwork for the circumstances and tools to wage cyber war. The balance of
power shifted to those with the means to use information technology, benefitting mostly nation
states who managed to fund and develop the cyber weapons and software needed to establish and
maintain dominance in the global community. Individuals have also gained power to become
forces in their own right, rewriting the relationship between government and the citizen.
While attempts to regulate the Internet, are attractive to some, led to many issues of civil
and human rights and problems of state and global governance. Regulation is good in some
cases, such as targeting child predators and cyber criminals. Who regulates the State is a major
issue dealing with national sovereignty and trans state governance as many governments fear
being forced into policies that favor rivals or undermine their sovereignty. As part of the
traditional balance of power, governments were absolute in their authority in domestic affairs,
but the new balance of power requires a rethinking of the authority of the government and many
governments, the United States, Russia, and China especially, are reluctant to delegate some of

15. 15
their authority to any trans state institution that would resemble a global government with the
power to punish and regulate their individual government activities absolutely without influence
from member states. Advances in information technology have already changed the balance of
power and with greater advances, the traditional balance of power and the ideology behind it will
both be rendered obsolete. The question is how governments will deal with the new balance of
power.
Work Cited
1. Arthur, C., Quinn, B., & Godfrey, H. (2011, July 18). Sun website hacked by lulzsec. The
Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/18/sun-website-
hacked-lulzsec
2. Ball, J. (2012, March 07). The lulzsec hacking arrests won't make it safer online. The
Guardian. Retrieved from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/07/lulzsec-hacking-arrests-
fbi?intcmp=239
3. Bielski, Z. (2012, April 27). Teen sues facebook bullies for libel. The Globe and Mail.
Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/teen-sues-facebook-
bullies-for-libel/article2415738/?from=sec431
4. Davis, J. (2007, August 21). Hackers take down the most wired country in europe. Wired,
Retrieved from http://www.buec.udel.edu/wraggej/MISY850-09S/Estonia.pdf
5. Eckholm, E., & Zezima, K. (2010, March 29). 6 teenagers are charged after classmate's
suicide. The New York Tims. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30bully.html?scp=4&sq=Phoebe Prince&st=cse

16. 16
6. Gchq to help firms combat cybercrime. (2011, November 25). BBC News. Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15881297
7. Hopkins, N. (2012, April 16). Militarisation of cyberspace: How the global power
struggle moved online. The Guardian. Retrieved from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/16/militarisation-of-cyberspace-power-
struggle
8. Houghton, B. (2011, December 22). A list of the world's top piracy sites. Retrieved from
http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2011/12/a-list-of-the-worlds-top-piracy-sites.html
9. Krekel, B. (2009). Capability of the people's republic of china to conduct cyber warfare
and computer network exploitation. Retrieved from Northrop Grumman Corporation
website: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-
bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA509000&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
10. Koebler, J. (2012, March 20). U.S. nukes face up to 10 million cyber attacks daily. USA
News. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/03/20/us-nukes-face-
up-to-10-million-cyber-attacks-daily
11. Lee, D. (2012, April 20). 'revenge porn' website isanyoneup.com. closed by owner. BBC
News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17784229
12. Ragan, S. (2010, December 30). Anonymous targets corrupt zimbabwe government. The
Tech Herald, Retrieved from http://www.thetechherald.com/articles/Anonymous-targets-
corrupt-Zimbabwe-government/12393/
13. Ritzer, G. (2010). Globalization: A basic text. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
14. Rupert murdoch. (2012, March). Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/profile/rupert-
murdoch/

17. 17
15. Ryan, Y. (2011, January 6). Tunisia's bitter cyberwar. Aljazeera. Retrieved from
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/01/20111614145839362.html
16. Sangani, K. (2011, September 22). Sony security laid bare. Engineering and Technology,
6(8), 74-77.
17. Shear, M. D., & Vick, K. (2008, September 18). Hackers access palin's personal e-mail,
post some online. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/docs/washpost/2008-09-
18_washpost_palin_email_hacked.pdf
18. Shackelford, S. J. (2008). From nuclear war to net war: Analogizing cyber attacks in
international law. Berkley Journal of International Law, 27(1), 191-251. Retrieved from
http://www.boalt.org/bjil/docs/BJIL27.1_Shackelford.pdf
This is the exclusive property of Benjamin Andrew Morley. This piece shall not be
reproduced without expressed permission of the author.