US tells Europe: Defend your Cyberspace or we will do it for you at IntelFusion - The Diigo Meta page

• 16 Oct 09
  

  TransTracker

  cyberwar

  • The US is mixing its signals and missing an opportunity to help solve the European Cyber-dilemma, which in turn could help untangle the US policy mess.

    
    

  • This is especially problematic as a number of recent conferences and meetings have had American officials “privately” telling Europeans the same thing: “Defend your Cyberspace or we will do it for you.” One American official put it even more graphically: “If we are under attack by a (hijacked) server in an European country, we will turn it off. One way, or the other.” While the idea of the US Tomahawking a friendly European nation in order to shut down a hostile server remains absurd, the possibility of the US launching Cyberweapons, or even an armed CIA squad at such a target is a real possibility. In other words European nations who fail to maintain the proper Cybersecurity structures (such as CERTs) and legal frameworks risk becoming collateral damage if and when the US hits back. In effect, it is the Bush Doctrine, alive and well: those who harbour terrorists are the same as terrorists. Even, apparently, if it is unintentional harbouring, say due to nice long holiday, or a 32 hour week.

    • 

      TransTracker on 2009-10-16

      There are several issues of concernt here. While the idea of the U.S. "Tomahawking" someone to shut down a hostile server does seem "absurd," current policy documents imply that the U.S. retains the right to do just that, which is indeed absurd...absurd to imply as much, in part because it is viewed as absurd, as something we wouldn't actually do, and hence serves no deterrent purpose. Second, there are those who wish to define cyberattack as "armed attack" under international law. So, even if we did not launch missiles in reply, if we did use cyberweapons to take out a hostile server in another country, by our own definition, we would be engaging in "armed attack," presumably in "self defense." Nonetheless, before the cyber-dust settles, if the country we attacked views us as the aggressor, does not have the means to respond in-kind with only cyberweapons, and agrees with our definition of cyberattack as "armed attack," then wouldn't the country we attacked be justified in launching a kinetic, physical-world attack in reponse?

Public Stiky Notes

• 
  TransTracker on 2009-10-16
  There are several issues of concernt here. While the idea of the U.S. "Tomahawking" someone to shut down a hostile server does seem "absurd," current policy documents imply that the U.S. retains the right to do just that, which is indeed absurd...absurd to imply as much, in part because it is viewed as absurd, as something we wouldn't actually do, and hence serves no deterrent purpose. Second, there are those who wish to define cyberattack as "armed attack" under international law. So, even if we did not launch missiles in reply, if we did use cyberweapons to take out a hostile server in another country, by our own definition, we would be engaging in "armed attack," presumably in "self defense." Nonetheless, before the cyber-dust settles, if the country we attacked views us as the aggressor, does not have the means to respond in-kind with only cyberweapons, and agrees with our definition of cyberattack as "armed attack," then wouldn't the country we attacked be justified in launching a kinetic, physical-world attack in reponse?

Would you like to comment?

Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.