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
-
U.S. Chip Controls and the Future of AI Compute
Podcast
That escalated quickly! Emily and Geoff discuss why the U.S. aim to deny China access to the computing power necessary for frontier AI capabilities has led to an ever expandin...
By Emily Kilcrease, Geoffrey Gertz & Pablo Chavez
-
Asymmetry and AI: The Battle for Power
Podcast
Paul Scharre, Vice President and Director of Studies at CNAS, joins Zero Pressure to discuss the world of asymmetric warfare, a term used to describe imbalances in conflict. F...
By Paul Scharre
-
Competition, Not Control, is Key to Winning the Global AI Race
Commentary
The United States, with much of the world’s AI-enabling infrastructure, has positioned itself as the global leader in AI innovation. That might not be the case for much longer...
By Keegan McBride & Matthew Mittelsteadt
-
Regulating AI Is Easier Than You Think
Commentary
Countries can regulate AI from the ground up by controlling access to highly specialized chips...
By Paul Scharre
