Offensive cyber operations endanger us all

There is increasing debate and concern over the actions of states and non-state actors alike in the cyber domain.  Annegret Bendiek and Ben Wagner, associates of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), outline key challenges and the dubious utility of offensive cyber operations in their article Making states responsible for their activities in cyberspace.

Ensuring the stability and integrity of the internet is a crucial goal for policy makers. In the words of the GGE [UN Group of Governmental Experts], it is a “key question for international peace and security.” – Annegret Bendiek and Ben Wagner

The two main methods of combatting cyber-security threats are:

  • “deterrence by resilience” — strengthening defenses and cyber infrastructure to ward off attacks; and
  • “deterrence by retaliation” — offensive responses to cyber-attacks.

While enhanced defensive measures can be highly beneficial, “deterrence by retaliation” can be challenged on many fronts, including effectiveness, legality and political legitimacy as well as the potential for serious “blowback”.

Many leading scholars have warned that the build-up of offensive capabilities only repeats the mistakes of the past. It fosters mistrust, leads to a new arms race and might even lead to the internet’s disintegration as states increasingly assert their sovereignty. – Bendiek and Wagner

As highlighted in an earlier Ceasefire.ca blog post, Canada’s new defence policy asserts Canada’s intention to go beyond much-needed enhancements of cyber defences to the “conduct of active active cyber operations against potential adversaries in the context of government-authorized military missions.”

But this new DND cyber mandate pales in comparison to the “vast mandate” outlined in Bill C-59 for the highly secretive Communications Security Establishment to carry out activities:

to degrade, disrupt, influence, respond to or interfere with the capabilities, intentions or activities of a foreign individual, state, organization or terrorist group as they relate to international affairs, defence or security. – Section 20 of the proposed Communications Security Establishment Act (CSE Act)

Such extraordinarily permissive language gives CSE the power not only to undermine fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens but also to contravene Canada’s international legal obligations.

Using the cyber domain as a battlefield is riddled with perils, with grave potential to undermine the reliability of the internet and the crucial infrastructure that it supports. Clearly our main objective now has to be

to encourage the development of an international order in which there are formidable restraints on the use of cyber force. – Lawrence Freedman

For the full article by Bendiek and Wagner, see: Making states responsible for their activities in cyberspace (The Security Times, February 2017).

Photo credit: NATO website

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “Offensive cyber operations endanger us all”

  1. Charles BeckettFebruary 17, 2018 at 5:23 pm #

    For sure cyber attacks on governments and business interests are offensive to us all.
    The public response includes the primary expectation that the government should do something about such activity and threats. The political stripes have a secondary influence in this situation, whether the current regime responds or a different future regime responds, so irregardless of who is in power the governments involved will have to try to mitigate the damage. The reaction includes using extreme tactics to stop the attacks, such as armed force as necessary. C. Beckett, Canada.

  2. Howard A. DoughtyFebruary 17, 2018 at 11:56 am #

    “Conservative” and “Liberal” are adjectives that are increasingly irrelevant in contemporary Canada. Both the enthusiastic “capitalist” parties have adopted the main tenets of “neoliberalism” (while, to be fair, the NDP has largely jettisoned any tokens of “socialism” in language and policy).

    So, we seem left with little but the hard and soft side of the ideology of corporate control. Absent the NDP turning over a new “leaf” (so to speak),
    nothing describes Canadian politics more aptly that Tommy Douglas’s old complaint that the two major parties are merely embodiments of the spirit of Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee (who, as Lewis Carroll reminded us, “agreed to have a battle”).

    The regularized rituals of voting also follow the dictum laid down by American humourist Kurt Vonnegut who famously declared (Harper’s magazine, Nov. 1972) there were two “imaginary” political parties in the USA – the Republicans and the Democrats and that there were also two “real” political parties in the USA – the Winners and the Losers. And, since both the imaginary parties were run by the Winners, in every election this much was certain; the Winners would win!

    Cyberspace? Pipelines? Electoral Reform? Equity? Aboriginal Reconciliation? Criminal Justice? Etc., etc., etc.? The apparent choice (at least as far as the corporate media are concerned) is between the “hard” and the “soft” sides of the instruments of social control.

  3. Hilda FranzFebruary 16, 2018 at 8:14 pm #

    I am deeply troubled that Canada is even considering the “cyber domain as a battleground. Please do everything in your power to try and circumvent that kind of madness. Do we want to copy the kid of madness that is going on across the border to the South? I had hoped for more wisdom from our politicians. It would not have surprised me if the Harper Gov. was still in power, but increasingly the transparency the Trudeau gov. promised us, is deteriorating into what looks more and more like “conservative politics”.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. MILNEWS.ca Highlights – February 19, 2018 | MILNEWS.ca Blog - February 19, 2018

    […] “Offensive cyber operations endanger us all … Using the cyber domain as a battlefield is… […]