August 14, 2018
Battlefield Internet
A Plan for Securing Cyberspace
Cyberspace has been recognized as a new arena for competition among states ever since it came into existence. In the United States, there have long been warnings of a “cyber–Pearl Harbor”—a massive digital attack that could cripple the country’s critical infrastructure without a single shot being fired. Presidential commissions, military task force reports, and congressional investigations have been calling attention to such a risk for decades. In 1984, the Reagan administration warned of the “significant security challenges” of the coming information age. And just this year, Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, said of such threats, “the lights are blinking red.”
Yet the Internet has always been much more than a venue for conflict and competition; it is the backbone of global commerce and communication. That said, cyberspace is not, as is often thought, simply part of the global commons in the way that the air or the sea is. States assert jurisdiction over, and companies claim ownership of, the physical infrastructure that composes the Internet and the data that traverses it. States and companies built the Internet, and both are responsible for maintaining it. Actions taken in the public sector affect the private sector, and vice versa. In this way, the Internet has always been hybrid in nature.
So, accordingly, is the real cyberwar threat. It turns out that for all the increasingly vehement warnings about a cyber–Pearl Harbor, states have shown little appetite for using cyberattacks for large-scale destruction. The immediate threat is more corrosive than explosive. States are using the tools of cyberwarfare to undermine the very foundation of the Internet: trust. They are hacking into banks, meddling in elections, stealing intellectual property, and bringing private companies to a standstill. The result is that an arena that the world relies on for economic and informational exchange has turned into an active battlefield.
Read the Full Article at Foreign Affairs
More from CNAS
-
Shift toward ‘Silicon Nation’ Promotes Resilience — for American Defense, Society and the Economy
Commentary
Better understanding by stakeholders of the national security and economic implications associated with robust S&T policies will drive additional incentives for pragmatic ...
By Alexandra Seymour & Martijn Rasser
-
Rewire: Semiconductors and U.S. Industrial Policy
Reports
As the United States considers industrial policy for the first time in decades, it should learn lessons from prior government efforts to shape the semiconductor industry, in t...
By Chris Miller
-
Martijn Rasser talks CHIPS Act with Newsy
Video
Martijn Rasser, Director of the Technology and National Security program at the Center for a New American Security, joins Newsy to discuss the CHIPS Act, Taiwan, and the semic...
-
AI and the Future of War
Podcast
AI safety is having a moment. To discuss why AI safety matters for national security, today China Talks have on Paul Scharre (@paulscharre), Vice President and Director of Stu...
By Paul Scharre
