The, Cyberwarfare, And International Law

The most recents detections of how cyber warfare is inevitably coming was the accusations of Russia hacking the the Democratic National Committee and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email’s releasing damaging evidence against them which ultimately lead to Donald Trump being named the President of The United States (Diamond, 2016). The effects of cyber warfare have leaked over in to televise series, forming shows such as CSI cyber, and the gaming world, Call Of Duty Infinite Warfare. Neglect regarding cyber security can: undermine the reputation of both the government and elected officials; force unacceptable expenditures associated with the cost of cleaning up after security breaches; cripple governments' abilities to respond to a wide variety of homeland security emergency situations or recover from natural or man-made threats; and disable elected officials' ability to govern (Lohrmann, 2010). Classified information such as overseas operators and attacks, missile locations, response plans and weaknesses, and much more cripples America’s ability to defend itself from enemies both foreign and domestic. To combat cyber terrorism is the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, or CISA. In an article titled “Why Cybersecurity Information Sharing Is A Positive Step for Online Security” it is discussed that under CISA, the Department of Homeland security will have more responsibility for domestic cybersecurity. CISA’s fundamental purpose is to better enable cybersecurity information to be shared between the private and public sectors (2016). The sharing of threat information between public and private sectors can give the the United States a head start by allowing them to share information rapidly and more often to combat enemy threats while still providing safety for privacy and civil

I read the article What Makes cyber crime laws so difficult to enforces by Deb Shinder of the Tech Republic . The article talks about why it is so hard to control cyber crime and enforce laws that will help prevent and protect people from cyber crime. The article starts about talking about how at first when the internet got mainstream it was not regulated at all, but over the coming years we have passed law that regulate things that you can do on the internet. Even though we have these laws that are not working in protecting people against cyber crime, it even states in the article that “It can be frustrating for the victims of such crimes, when the perpetrators are never brought to justice”. The article goes into different subdivision on what they believe is causing the laws to not be effective. It split into judicial issues, Anonymity and identity, Nature of the evidence.

The book “Conquest in Cyberspace” went in depth on the United States’, Russia’s, and China’s views on information warfare and cyber warfare. It also discussed the areas where their policies, guidance, and operations differ and are the same. One of the most interesting things which I noticed in the completion of this assignment is how the United States has the most well defined and in depth policies and governances regulating their information warfare and cyber warfare operations and how both China and Russia has taking the policies and governances created by the United States and mimicked them in the creation of their own policies and governances for information

It is abundantly apparent that joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational (JIIM) interactions are vital when combating the adversaries of the United States. Conflict has significantly changed over the years and new threats have emerged that require specific countermeasures. Modern warfare presents insidious dangers from an ever-evolving enemy or adversary. According to Mr. Wall’s article, “Demystifying the Title10 – Title 50 Debate: Distinguishing Military Operations, Intelligence Activities & Covert Action,” he claims that to combat unconventional and cyber threats (or to conduct unconventional warfare and cyberwarfare) a correct understanding between the relationship between Title 10 and Title 50 is crucial. Mr. Wall states that these Titles “…create mutually supporting, not mutually exclusive, authorities.” His article details the facts about Title 50 and Title 10 and states that

In a documentary by Admiral Vern (2002), “the events of September 11, 2001 tragically illustrated that the promise of peace and security in the 21st Century is fraught with profound dangers”. The US foreign policies and interest in key geographic regions of the world sparks controversies resulting in state funded cyber attacks, cyber espionage and terrorism against the United States and its allied nations. When several attempts to cripple the United States and its allied nations through negotiations failed, enemy states and nefarious groups have shifted their focus to cyber attacks and cyber espionage. According to Gady (2016), “China continues cyber espionage against the United States”. Drezner (2014), “Washington and Beijing hardly agree on everything, but they agree on the big things, like maintaining an open global economy, reducing the likelihood of a military confrontation, and tackling climate change”.

Each viewpoint, the hawk, the dove, and the internationalist base their consequent arguments on the perceived current political and moral position of the United States regarding international cybersecurity. Similar to relations between the USSR and the US, the rhetoric between the United States and China draws from the tensions surrounding superpower military supremacy and moral imperatives. Between the hawkish, dovish, and internationalist perspectives, the themes of American military and moral power persist.

Cyber security policy is largely dominated by two separate but similar incidents, cyber terrorism and state sponsored events. A cyber terrorist attack may be defined as a computer based attack, the purpose of which is to cause enough destruction that it intimidates a government into compliance for political purposes (XX1). State sponsored attacks, by contrast, is the intentional use of cyberspace by governments to illegally obtain classified information from another state. Such information may be used for malicious purposes, such as assessing an enemy state's weaknesses (XX). As mentioned in Chapter 3, Canada's cyber security agencies have existed since the early days of the Cold War. However, the maintenance of Canada's

On February 12, 2015 president Obama signed an executive order with the intention to expand the Cybersecurity of the U.S. and to promote principles of collaboration not just in America but around the globe. Cybersecurity has been identified as one of the most challenging subjects of the 21st-century; moreover, cyber-attacks can further compromise the future of our economic development as much as our national security and the decrement of our civil rights and privacy. Since Obama initiate his administration, he has been working on establishing the framework to better balance the interaction between, government agencies, private sector, and the general public. The objective in this essay is to better understand the connotations from several

Pfleeger, S. Pfleeger, and Margulies (2015) outline possible examples of cyber warfare between Canada and China (p. 844). According to Pfleeger, S. Pfleeger, and Margulies (2015), “the Canadian government revealed that several of its national departments had been victims of a cyber attack…” (p. 844). Eventually, the attack was unofficially traced to a computer in China (p. 844). Cyber warfare can be used negatively and positively. It is evident that China was seeking to gain protected information form Canada. Although a purpose of cyber warfare, it is not a conventional way of obtaining information. Additionally, cyber warfare can be used to collect intelligence on an enemy. Anyone seeking to gather intelligence on another individual or group can launch a cyber attack that gains access to protected files. This could be used to help future militant operations or expose critical information. Lastly, cyber warfare can be used to test systems internally. Acting with no malicious intent, “insiders” can utilizing cyber warfare tactics to attack their own cyber security barriers in order to test the strength of their systems. Seeking to expose the vulnerabilities in a system that contains important assets without actually harming the assets provides the system a diagnosis of what needs to be strengths and fixed. Identifying the problem or threats before an actual attack can ultimately save the protected

The JIE considers that the future security environment will continue to feature a range of adversaries attempting to shape political behavior by conducting damaging or disruptive cyber-attacks. This is a consequence of the globalization and cannot be stopped, however timely contention is needed. The Joint Force must minimize the consequences of threatened or successful cyberattacks against the United States, its allies, and partners by conducting Military Support to Cyber

Cyber threats and attacks are becoming more common, sophisticated and damaging. NATO and its Allies rely on strong and resilient cyber defenses to fulfil the Alliance’s core tasks of collective defense, crisis management and cooperative security. NATO affirms international law applies in cyberspace

For thousands of years warfare remained relatively unchanged. While the tactics and weapons have changed as new methods of combat evolved, men and women or their weapons still had to meet at the same time and place in order to attack, defend, surrender or conquer. However, the advent of the of the internet has created a new realm of combat in which armies can remotely conduct surveillance, reconnaissance, espionage, and attacks from an ambiguous and space-less digital environment. Both state and non-state actors have already embraced this new realm and utilized both legal and illegal means to further facilitate their interests. What complicates cyber security further is as states attempt to protect themselves from cyber-warfare, private

A lot of opinions and meanings has been given to the word “Cyberterrorism”. Some of these meanings and definitions varies. In this light, Gordon and Ford (2003) are concerned that when 10 people define cyberterrorism and nine of the given answers are different, and these 10 people represent different government agencies tasked with safeguarding national assets and infrastructure, then it becomes a critical issue.

Every state in the nation should have a comprehensive IT security policy due to the “growing array of state and non-state actors are compromising, stealing, changing, or destroying information and could cause critical disruptions to U.S. systems” ("Cyberspace policy RevIew", 2016). Because of “ the dual challenge of maintaining an environment that promotes efficiency, innovation, economic prosperity, and free trade while also promoting safety, security, civil liberties, and privacy rights” ("Cyberspace policy RevIew", 2016). It is the responsibility of state and the federal government “ to address strategic vulnerabilities in cyberspace and ensure that the United States and the world realize the full potential of the information technology revolution” ("Cyberspace policy RevIew", 2016).

In contrast to the ideas of “information space,” both Russian and Chinese references to “cyberspace” occur primarily in translations of foreign text or in references to foreign strategic approaches. According to a U.S. military definition, “Cyberspace…is the Domain characterized by the use of electronics and the electromagnetic spectrum to store, modify, and exchange data via networked systems and associated physical infrastructures.” Consequentially, “Cyberspace Operations is the employment of cyber capabilities where the primary purpose is to achieve objectives in or through cyberspace. Such operations include computer network operations and activities to operate and defend the Global Information Grid.” The Russian equivalent of киберпространство, kiberprostranstvo, and the Chinese