Clearly defining cyberwar is problematic because there are various levels of cyberespionage and tactics that create uncertainty, writes Bruce Schneier. Although he points out that developing offensive digital measures that target another nation is not a warlike act by itself, the use of cyberattacks to spy on another country represents "a gray area." This ambiguity increases when a country breaches information networks as a feasibility study.
Schneier says the definitions and rules of cyberwarfare are complicated not only because weapons have changed, but because a broader group of people can avail themselves of those weapons through cyberspace. The lack of clear knowledge about the motives and perpetrators of cyberattacks further clouds the issue, and Schneier warns that this could lead to retaliation against the wrong target, or for the wrong reason. "While it is legitimate for nations to build offensive and defensive cyberwar capabilities we also need to think now about what can be done to limit the risk of cyberwar," he urges.
Schneier suggests setting up a hotline between the world's cybercommands, so that communication between governments can hopefully produce more constructive results than bare speculation. There also should be established new cyberwar pacts that could stipulate a no-first-use policy, declare unaimed weapons unlawful, or authorize the use of weapons that destroy themselves at the conclusion of hostilities.
From The Financial Times
View Full Article – May Require Free Registration
Abstracts Copyright © 2010 Information Inc., Bethesda, Maryland, USA
No entries found