Cyberbreaches have graduated from hacker foolery to headline news. After the recent Mandiant report,
we are rightly outraged and witnessing a call to arms from all corners,
political and private, to defend our national assets -- intellectual
property, technology, future designs and plans -- from exploitation by
China and other countries. The actions of these adversaries constitute
another form of trade war, but do they represent "cyberwar"?
While it is imperative to take action, we need to be careful how we
frame the problem and how we use the terminology "cyberwar." Are we in
the midst of an unprecedented campaign of state sanctioned trade
warfare? Absolutely. Are the losses we are encountering detrimental to
our nation and economic competitiveness on a global scale? Without
question. Should we take action to protect our corporate and government
networks from compromise while deterring our adversaries? Of course.
But does this activity rise to the traditional definition of "war" and does it warrant the instruments of warfare? When it comes to cyber-espionage and its application to trade warfare, my answer is no. We must use the existing range of trade diplomacy levers and sanctions to apply pressure on China and other countries engaged in illicit trade warfare via cyber-exploitation.
Escalation in the cyberworld is easy and blowback is an uncontrolled risk. Principles of proportionality and deterrence are essential to ensure the cure is not worse than the disease. Unless and until our critical infrastructures that provide energy, transportation, water, and finance for our nation are attacked, we should not be responding with the instruments of war, whether it be cyber or kinetic.
Today, trade warfare is initiated through a spearphish -- in which a simple click can lead to loss of corporate secrets in a matter of minutes. The best offense is a strong defense and attribution of attacks. Our most important challenge is not taking the fight to the enemy, but rather having the courage and political will to defend our own national treasures.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/28/what-is-an-act-of-cyberwar/trade-war-versus-cyberwar
Diplomacy and sanctions are better tools for applying pressure on countries engaged in illicit trade warfare via cyber-exploitation.
But does this activity rise to the traditional definition of "war" and does it warrant the instruments of warfare? When it comes to cyber-espionage and its application to trade warfare, my answer is no. We must use the existing range of trade diplomacy levers and sanctions to apply pressure on China and other countries engaged in illicit trade warfare via cyber-exploitation.
Escalation in the cyberworld is easy and blowback is an uncontrolled risk. Principles of proportionality and deterrence are essential to ensure the cure is not worse than the disease. Unless and until our critical infrastructures that provide energy, transportation, water, and finance for our nation are attacked, we should not be responding with the instruments of war, whether it be cyber or kinetic.
Today, trade warfare is initiated through a spearphish -- in which a simple click can lead to loss of corporate secrets in a matter of minutes. The best offense is a strong defense and attribution of attacks. Our most important challenge is not taking the fight to the enemy, but rather having the courage and political will to defend our own national treasures.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/28/what-is-an-act-of-cyberwar/trade-war-versus-cyberwar