4 ms·
New Everyone Cyberattacks: What's to Be Done? Four things, each with their own time horizon and in parallel. 1. Norms for cyber warfare and international cybe
by xnull6guest 11y ago
New Everyone Cyberattacks: What's to Be Done?
Four things, each with their own time horizon and in parallel.
1. Norms for cyber warfare and international cyber activity to be developed. (The US may not be able to lead this post-Snowden, but they should try and should be involved.)
2. Cooperation on international standards, development and funding in cyberspace to improve and prove the security of networks, protocols, hardware and software.
3. Deescalation of cyber capabilities and activities. These exercises can be expressed in many ways such as 'cyber-free days' where nations show their good intentions by withholding operations in good faith.
4. International investment, development, data sharing and standardization of forensics capabilities to squeeze the attribution problem. This may be done in lockstep with protocol development.
But at its root there are three reasons nations hack one another: intelligence, intellectual property, sabotage.
Whatever deterrents and legal frameworks are in place will need to be as or more compelling than the motivations for cyberactivity. Whatever can be done to limit what can be gained by intelligence, sabotage and IP theft will in turn limit cyber activity. So a fifth item would be to reexamine and double down on the international peace keeping frameworks that discourage the listed above.
- happyscrappy 11y ago>But at its root there are three reasons nations hack one another: intelligence, intellectual property, sabotage. Or in this case to block their own citizens access to information that is available worldwide.
- xnull6guest 11y agoMeh - that's not why there are cyber attacks. I mean - if you take the attacks on greatfire and SONY they are retaliations for propaganda operations. 'Information' available around the globe and 'narrative' around the globe are not easily disentangled. The US also faces these challenges, and uses a series of tactics (mostly Sunstein style shilling) of dealing with these issues (but also limited forms of censorship partnerships). Namely these cyber activities are not censorship in the most obvious and indisputable form, as you suggest. My argument above can be thought of a way to deal with the international problem of cybermilitary attacks. Diplomacy products are another, separate, issue.
- Canada 11y ago> Deescalation of cyber capabilities and activities. Asking everyone to please stop exploiting vulnerabilities hasn't worked for non-state actors. What's different this time? The internet community needs to adopt better protocols, hardware, and software. The development of attack capabilities force that to happen.
- xnull6guest 11y agoWell, we're talking here about very concrete things: days where cyber activity is stopped as a show of good faith, or nations trading their compromised networks like they do today with spies. This won't in and of itself stop the activity - and it's not intended to. This is intended to foster cooperation and trust. Cooperation and trust are required for international norms development and cooperation on standards, and in addition lessen the incentive for nations to hack one another out of suspicion or hedging bets.
- cm2187 11y agoNot only the US may not lead this but Snowden has shown that they are one of the primary actors weaponizing the internet. Who else would want to "disarm" in these conditions? I'm not saying states should hack each others but complaining about China is a pretty spectacular "do as I say, not as I do".
- xnull6guest 11y agoRight. At the top of my post I correct the title to say everyone hacks everyone. This is a tragedy of the commons type situation. Nobody wants to disarm. However there is historical precedent for cooperation and disarmament under these conditions - even with nuclear arms races. This is what I'm suggesting - what things do we need to do to deescalate an international cyber arms race.