Last Wednesday, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced the US was finally getting its act together on cyber-warfare. After a couple of false starts and a good deal of bureaucratic infighting, the Pentagon is setting up a unified US Cyber Command to oversee protection of military networks against cyber threats. It will be called USCybercom and will be led by the director of the National Security Agency, Lieutenant General Keith Alexander.
In a memo to the joint chiefs of staff, Gates said he had directed General Kevin Chilton, head of US Strategic Command, to develop implementation plans for the new command, which he wants on his desk by the beginning of September. Gates says that he expects USCybercom to be up and running by October and to have reached “full operating capability” within a year. That is light speed by federal government standards, so you can bet something’s up.
What it signifies is official recognition by the administration of President Barack Obama that the world has embarked on a new arms race. The weapons this time are malicious data-packets of the kind hitherto employed mainly by spammers, malware programmers, phishers, hackers and criminals. But whereas those operators are in business for mischief or private gain, nations will use their cyber-tools to wreak economic havoc and social disruption.
We’ve already had a case study of how it will work. Two years ago, Estonia experienced a sustained cyber-attack. It happened during a period of tension between Estonia and Russia.
“For the first time,” The Economist reported, “a state faced a frontal, anonymous attack that swamped the websites of banks, ministries, newspapers and broadcasters; that hobbled Estonia’s efforts to make its case abroad. Previous bouts of cyber-warfare have been far more limited by comparison: probing another country’s Internet defenses, rather as a reconnaissance plane tests air defenses.”
The onslaught was of a sophistication not seen before, with tactics shifting as weaknesses emerged. Individual “ports” (firewall gates) of mission-critical computers in, for example, Estonia’s telephone exchanges were targeted. The emergency number used to call ambulance and fire services was out of action for more than an hour. And so on.
It was a chilling demonstration of what is now possible, and it made governments sit up and take notice. Estonia is a member of NATO and the alliance responded by setting up a specialist cyber-warfare base in the country. Its code name is K5 and British reporter Bobbie Johnson visited it this year.
Johnson recounts what one of the staff told him about how NATO would react to another cyber-strike: “Overwhelming response: a single, gigantic counterstrike that cripples the target and warns anyone else off launching a future cyber-war. He isn’t sure what it would look like, but the show of force he envisages is so severe that the only thing he can compare it to is a nuclear attack.”
Hyperbole maybe, but all military establishments are tooling up. Last Thursday, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown revealed that his government had set up a “strategic” unit within the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). Lord West, the retired admiral drafted in to the Home Office to look after security, told the BBC that “the government had developed the capability to strike back at cyber attacks,” though he declined to say if it had ever been used.
If Chinese, Russian, Israeli and Iranian ministers were free to speak on the subject, the message would be much the same.
If you’re not worried, you have not been paying attention. Almost without realizing it, our societies have become hugely dependent on a functioning, reliable Internet.
Life would go on without it, but most people would be shocked by how difficult much of the routine business of living would become. It would be like being teleported back to the 1970s. Even a minor conflict could slow the global Internet to a crawl. So cyber-war is a bit like nuclear war, in that even a minor outbreak threatens everyone’s life and welfare.
In those circumstances, isn’t it time we thought about devising treaties to regulate it? We need something analogous to the 1925 Geneva Protocol to the Hague Convention, which prohibited chemical and biological weapons. And we need to start now.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
As the highest elected official in the nation’s capital, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate-in-waiting for a presidential bid. With the exception of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕), Chiang is the most likely KMT figure to take over the mantle of the party leadership. All the other usual suspects, from Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have already been rejected at the ballot box. Given such high expectations, Chiang should be demonstrating resolve, calm-headedness and political wisdom in how he faces tough
RSS