February 21, 2022
The Cyber Social Contract
In the spring of 2021, a Russia-based cybercrime group launched a ransomware attack against the largest fuel pipeline in the United States. According to the cybersecurity firm Mandiant, the subsequent shutdown and gas shortage across the East Coast likely originated from a single compromised password. That an individual misstep might disrupt critical services for millions illustrates just how vulnerable the United States’ digital ecosystem is in the twenty-first century.
Although most participants in the cyber-ecosystem are aware of these growing risks, the responsibility for mitigating systemic hazards is poorly distributed. Cyber-professionals and policymakers are too often motivated more by a fear of risk than by an aspiration to realize cyberspace’s full potential. Exacerbating this dynamic is a decades-old tendency among the large and sophisticated actors who design, construct, and operate digital systems to devolve the cost and difficulty of risk mitigation onto users who often lack the resources and expertise to address them.
Cyberthreats represent a betrayal of what advocates promised at the dawn of the digital revolution.
Too often, this state of affairs produces digital ecosystems where private information is easily accessible, predatory technology is inexpensive, and momentary lapses in vigilance can snowball into a continent-wide catastrophe. Although individually oriented tools like multifactor authentication and password managers are critical to solving elements of this problem, they are inadequate on their own. A durable solution must involve moving away from the tendency to charge isolated individuals, small businesses, and local governments with shouldering absurd levels of risk. Those more capable of carrying the load—such as governments and large firms—must take on some of the burden, and collective, collaborative defense needs to replace atomized and divided efforts. Until then, the problem will always look like someone else’s to solve.
Read the full article from 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
