DOCSLIB.ORG

The Impact of China on Cybersecurity the Impact of China Jon R

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Impact of China on Cybersecurity the Impact of China Jon R The Impact of China on Cybersecurity The Impact of China Jon R. Lindsay on Cybersecurity Fiction and Friction The ubiquity and in- terconnectedness of computers in global commerce, civil society, and military affairs create crosscutting challenges for policy and conceptual confusion for theory. The challenges and confusion in cybersecurity are particularly acute in the case of China, which has one of the world’s fastest growing internet econo- mies and one of its most active cyber operations programs. In 2013 U.S. National Security Adviser Tom Donilon singled out Chinese cyber intrusions as “not solely a national security concern or a concern of the U.S. govern- ment,” but also a major problem for ªrms suffering from “sophisticated, tar- geted theft of conªdential business information and proprietary technologies . emanating from China on an unprecedented scale.”1 One U.S. congressman alleged that China has “established cyber war military units and laced the U.S. infrastructure with logic bombs.” He suggested that “America is under attack by digital bombs.”2 The discourse on China and cybersecurity routinely con- ºates issues as different as political censorship, unfair competition, assaults on infrastructure, and internet governance, even as all loom large for practical cyber policy. Although they involve similar information technologies, there is little reason to expect different political economic problems to obey the same strategic logic, nor should one necessarily expect China to enjoy relative ad- vantage in all spheres. Indeed, the intelligence leaks from Edward Snowden in 2013 underscored the sophistication and extent of internet surveillance by the United States and its allies against targets worldwide, including in China.3 The Snowden Jon R. Lindsay is an assistant research scientist at the University of California Institute on Global Conºict and Cooperation and an assistant adjunct professor at the University of California, San Diego School of In- ternational Relations and Paciªc Studies. The author would like to thank Ben Bahney, Michael Beckley, Tai Ming Cheung, Paul Cornish, Erik Gartzke, Derek Reveron, Julian Snelder, Jack Jiakun Zhang, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on this project. This research was supported by the Department of Defense Mi- nerva Initiative and Ofªce of Naval Research Grant N00014-14-1-0071. 1. Tom Donilon, “The United States and the Asia-Paciªc in 2013,” Asia Society, New York, March 11, 2013 (Washington, D.C.: White House, March 2013), http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press- ofªce/2013/03/11/remarks-tom-donilon-national-security-advisory-president-united-states-a. 2. Charles Cooper, “House Hearing: U.S. Now Under Cyber Attack,” CNET, April 24, 2012, http:// news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57420229-83/house-hearing-u.s-now-under-cyber-attack/. 3. Jeffrey T. Richelson, ed., “The Snowden Affair: Web Resource Documents the Latest Firestorm International Security, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Winter 2014/15), pp. 7–47, doi:10.1162/ISEC_a_00189 © 2015 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 7 International Security 39:3 8 revelations not only invigorated debate about the balance between security and privacy in a democracy but also undercut the moral force of American complaints about Chinese penetration of commercial, government, and de- fense networks.4 Chinese writers hasten to compare the United States to “a thief crying stop thief.”5 Meanwhile U.S. ofªcials attempt to distinguish be- tween acceptable data collection for national security and unacceptable crimi- nal economic espionage.6 Notably, a May 2014 grand jury indicted ªve alleged members of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) on several counts of industrial espionage, but omitted mentioning that the same PLA unit targets military interests as well.7 Chinese critics reject the American distinction be- tween legitimate and illegitimate internet surveillance and deny allegations of hacking. They also call for the restriction of American internet ªrms from the Chinese domestic market in order to protect Chinese infrastructure from sub- version.8 Cyber operations and the rhetorical reactions to them on both sides of the Paciªc have undermined trust in the Sino-American relationship.9 Exaggerated fears about the paralysis of digital infrastructure and growing concerns over competitive advantage exacerbate the spiral of mistrust. Closer consideration of domestic factors within China and China’s strategic interac- over the National Security Agency,” National Security Archive Electronic Brieªng Book (Washington, D.C.: National Security Archive, George Washington University, September 4, 2013), http://www2 .gwu.edu/ϳnsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB436/. 4. See, for example, Ofªce of the National Counterintelligence Executive, Foreign Spies Stealing US Economic Secrets in Cyberspace: Report to Congress on Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espio- nage 2009–2011 (Washington, D.C.: Ofªce of the National Counterintelligence Executive, October 2011). 5. Zhong Sheng, “The United States Bears Primary Responsibility for Stopping Cyber War,” People’s Daily Online, February 7, 2013. 6. For example, the United States forbids “the collection of foreign private commercial informa- tion or trade secrets...toaffordacompetitive advantage to U.S. companies and U.S. business sec- tors commercially.” See Ofªce of the Press Secretary, White House, “Signals Intelligence Activities,” Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-28 (Washington, D.C.: White House, January 17, 2014). 7. U.S. Department of Justice, Ofªce of Public Affairs, “U.S. Charges Five Chinese Military Hackers for Cyber Espionage against U.S. Corporations and a Labor Organization for Commercial Advantage,” press release, May 19, 2014, http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2014/May/14-ag- 528.html. For further details on the Second Bureau of the PLA General Staff Department Third Bu- reau (3/PLA), see Mandiant, “APT1: Exposing One of China’s Cyber Espionage Units” (Alexan- dria, Va.: Mandiant, February 2013), http://intelreport.mandiant.com/Mandiant_APT1_Report .pdf. 8. Michael D. Swaine, “Chinese Views on Cybersecurity in Foreign Relations,” China Leadership Monitor, September 20, 2013, http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/09/20/chinese-views-on- cybersecurity-in-foreign-relations. 9. Kenneth G. Lieberthal and Wang Jisi, “Addressing U.S.-China Strategic Distrust” (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, March 2012). The Impact of China on Cybersecurity 9 tion with the United States reveals a more complicated yet less worrisome situ- ation. This article argues that for every type of purported Chinese cyber threat, there are also serious Chinese vulnerabilities and Western strengths that rein- force the political status quo. Cyberwar between the United States and China, much like U.S.-China conventional war, is highly unlikely. Nevertheless, the economically driven proliferation of information technology enables numer- ous instances of friction to emerge below the threshold of violence. From a technical perspective, cyber operations are often thought to be inexpensive and effective, but there are underappreciated institutional costs involved in their employment. Moreover, even if actors can overcome the operational bar- riers associated with ambitious cyber penetrations, they still have incentives to moderate the intensity of their exploitation in order to preserve the beneªts that make exploitation worthwhile in the ªrst place. This logic culminates in a relentlessly irritating but indeªnitely tolerable stability in the cyber do- main. China and the United States can look forward to chronic and ambiguous intelligence-counterintelligence contests across their networks, even as the in- ternet facilitates productive exchange between them. This article proceeds in six sections. The ªrst section marshals debates about cybersecurity and the rise of China to frame four prominent threat narratives. The next four sections analyze the empirical manifestations of, respectively, political, espionage, military, and institutional cyber threats in the case of China. The concluding section draws out generalizations about interactions across these categories and offers reasons to expect a measure of restraint in cyberspace. Cybersecurity and International Relations Claims about Chinese cyber threats fall at the intersection of two different de- bates, one about the impact of information technology on international secu- rity and the other about the political and economic future of a rising power. The technological debate centers on whether ubiquitous networks create revolutionary dangers or just marginal evolutions of computer crime, signals intelligence, and electronic warfare.10 One side of this debate argues that inter- 10. For collections of perspectives on both sides of the debate, see Franklin D. Kramer, Stuart H. Starr, and Larry K. Wentz, eds., Cyberpower and National Security (Washington, D.C.: Potomac, 2009); and Derek S. Reveron, ed., Cyberspace and National Security: Threats, Opportunities, and Power in a Virtual World (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2012). For balanced introduc- tions to cybersecurity policy, see P.W. Singer and Allan Friedman, Cybersecurity and Cyberwar: What International Security 39:3 10 connected infrastructure and easily accessible hacking tools make advanced industrial powers particularly vulnerable to serious disruption from weaker states or even nonstate actors.11 The other side argues that the defense industry and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kinetic Tactics of Competing Powers Over the Coming Decade
    A Virtual Think Tank (ViTTa®) Report September 2019 Kinetic and Non- Kinetic Tactics of Competing Powers Over the Coming Decade Deeper Analyses Clarifying Insights Better Decisions NSIteam.com Produced in support of the Strategic Multilayer Assessment (SMA) Office (Joint Staff, J39) Kinetic and Non-Kinetic Tactics of Competing Powers Over the Coming Decade Author George Popp Editors Sarah Canna and George Popp Please direct inquiries to George Popp at [email protected] What is ViTTa? NSI’s Virtual Think Tank (ViTTa) provides rapid response to critical information needs by pulsing a global network of subject matter experts (SMEs) to generate a wide range of expert insight. For the Strategic Multilayer Assessment (SMA) Future of Global Competition and Conflict project, ViTTa was used to address 12 key questions provided by the project’s Joint Staff sponsors. The ViTTa team received written response submissions from 65 subject matter experts from academia, government, military, and industry. This report consists of: 1. A summary overview of the expert contributor response to the ViTTa question of focus. 2. The full corpus of expert contributor responses received for the ViTTa question of focus. 3. Biographies of expert contributors. _________________________________ Cover image: https://ak9.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/12961529/thumb/1.jpg RESEARCH ▪ INNOVATIONNSI ▪ EXCELLENCE II Kinetic and Non-Kinetic Tactics of Competing Powers Over the Coming Decade Table of Contents What is ViTTa? ...................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tribe-Of-Hackers-Cybersecurity-Advice-From-The
    TRIBE OF HACKERS TRIBE OF HACKERS Cybersecurity Advice from the Best Hackers in the World Marcus J. Carey & Jennifer Jin Cover illustration: Creation © Allriot.com Cover and book design: www.adamhaystudio.com Copyright © 2019 by Marcus J. Carey. All rights reserved. Published by Threatcare Press in Austin, Texas. No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical (including photocopying, electronic, recording, or otherwise) without the prior permission in writing from the publisher. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: The views and opinions expressed in this book are of the contributors themselves and do not necessarily reflect the views of the co-authors, Threatcare, or its employees. While the authors have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. This work is sold with the understanding that neither the authors nor the publisher are held responsible for the results accrued from the advice in this book. Neither the publisher nor the authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. ISBN: 978-1-79346-418-7 Printed in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 First Edition www.tribeofhackers.com Introduction 1 01 Marcus J.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from Others for Future U.S. Army Operations in and Through the Information Environment CASE STUDIES
    C O R P O R A T I O N Lessons from Others for Future U.S. Army Operations in and Through the Information Environment CASE STUDIES Christopher Paul, Colin P. Clarke, Michael Schwille, Jakub P. Hlávka, Michael A. Brown, Steven S. Davenport, Isaac R. Porche III, Joel Harding For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1925z2 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-0-8330-9997-6 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2018 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover photos (clockwise from top left): Giorgio Montersino via Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0); U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Adawn Kelsey; U.S. Air Force photo by Tech Sgt John Gordinier; U.S. Air National Guard photo by Master Sgt Andrew J. Moseley; Russian Ministry of Defence (CC BY 4.0); North Korean national media Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous.
    [Show full text]
  • Artificial Intelligence
    November-December 2019 Advanced Public Forum Brief 2 Resolved: The benefits of the United States federal government’s use of offensive cyber operations outweigh the harms. This topic brief was written by Jesse Meyer. Jesse is a diamond coach, recipient of the Donald Crabtree Service Award, the state of Iowa’s 2015 Coach of the Year, and board member of the Iowa Forensics League. He is currently an assistant coach at Iowa City West High School. He can be reached at [email protected]. National Speech & Debate Association • Public Forum Debate: NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2019 ADVANCED BRIEF November-December 2019 Advanced Public Forum Brief 3 November-December 2019 Advanced Public Forum Brief Table of Contents Resolved: The benefits of the United States federal government’s use of offensive cyber operations outweigh the harms. ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Framework and Definitions ....................................................................................................................... 9 Other Countries ........................................................................................................................................... 14 China .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • WEAPONS of MASS DISTRACTION: Foreign State-Sponsored Disinformation in the Digital Age
    WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRACTION: Foreign State-Sponsored Disinformation in the Digital Age MARCH 2019 PARK ADVISORS | Weapons of Mass Distraction: Foreign State-Sponsored Disinformation in the Digital Age Authored by Christina Nemr and William Gangware Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the following subject matter experts who provided input on early drafts of select excerpts: Dr. Drew Conway, Dr. Arie Kruglanski, Sean Murphy, Dr. Alina Polyakova, and Katerina Sedova. The authors also appreciate the contributions to this paper by Andrew Rothgaber and Brendan O’Donoghue of Park Advisors, as well as the editorial assistance provided by Rhonda Shore and Ryan Jacobs. This report was produced with support from the US Department of State’s Global Engagement Center. Any views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the US State Department, Park Advisors, or its subject matter expert consultants. Any errors contained in this report are the authors’ alone. PARK ADVISORS | Weapons of Mass Distraction: Foreign State-Sponsored Disinformation in the Digital Age 0. Table of Contents 01 Introduction and contextual analysis 04 How do we define disinformation? 06 What psychological factors drive vulnerabilities to disinformation and propaganda? 14 A look at foreign state-sponsored disinformation and propaganda 26 Platform-specific challenges and efforts to counter disinformation 39 Knowledge gaps and future technology challenges PARK ADVISORS | Weapons of Mass Distraction: Foreign State-Sponsored Disinformation in the Digital Age 1 Introduction and 1. contextual analysis On July 12, 2014, viewers of Russia’s main state-run television station, Channel One, were shown a horrific story.
    [Show full text]
  • Election Interference: an Evolving Strategic Situation
    Election Interference: An Evolving Strategic Situation Andrew Rose POLS 290-001W Political Science Capstone Fall 2020 Semester Introduction While democratic government is a commonplace geopolitical model today, there are still some states dedicated to the erosion of democratic values. Perhaps there is no pillar more integral to a functioning democracy than free elections. One of the best ways to compromise that foundation is through election interference. This practice, which can involve cyber-attacks on a variety of targets, the dispersal of ‘fake news’ and the co-option of stateside actors, has recently become a topic of much discussion. It is, in fact, too far ranging a concept to tackle in one place. The many disparate appearances which interference takes on, as well as its many potential trajectories complicate any study of the matter. A completely comprehensive survey will not be undertaken here. Firstly, what exactly election interference is must be defined. The exactness is what makes this a demanding task. When it is accomplished, it should be clear what harm interference can really do. The next point of exploration is one that becomes increasingly complex depending upon one’s worldview and political affiliation: what can be done about it? As a destabilizing tool, election interference has been deployed with increasing dexterity by numerous international actors. While most modern states have offensive and defensive cyber tools in their arsenals, there are only a select handful which use cyber meddling to interfere in elections and other democratic processes. China, North Korea and Iran all engage in cyber meddling and election interference, although with sometimes diverging methods and disparate goals in mind.
    [Show full text]
  • Authoritarian Influence Operations in East Asia: Chinese Foreign Interference Through Cyberwarfare, Influence Operations, and Coercion
    AUTHORITARIAN INFLUENCE OPERATIONS IN EAST ASIA: CHINESE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE THROUGH CYBERWARFARE, INFLUENCE OPERATIONS, AND COERCION Adam Foster Recently, China has increased its foreign political interference operations and developed cyber-strategies to hedge against threats from both state and individual actors. Since 2016, IR scholars have recognized Russian attempts at foreign interference in advanced democracies and US allies. Investigation as to how the Chinese government has devel- oped and deployed foreign interference tactics, however, have largely gone unnoticed. Through the examination of case-studies in Chinese cyberwarfare, influence operations in Australia, and economic and diplomatic coercion in Taiwan, this paper aims to determine how the CCP uses foreign interference tactics to address its regime security concerns. This paper will argue that, as a safeguard against threats to its regime security, China has increasingly deployed interference in domestic economies and politics as part of its statecraft. Cyberwarfare efforts to promote pro-PRC business leaders and elected officials in Australia and to influence Taiwan’s media have had some success in promoting pro- PRC views. However, overt electoral interference by the CCP almost inevitably leads to negative media coverage and backlash against the PRC. INTRODUCTION As China asserts itself as a global superpower, the Chinese Communist Party endeav- ors to pursue legitimation of its rule via reinstating the historical norm of Chinese political, economic, and cultural dominance in East Asia. Whereas prior to the Xi Jinping era, the CCP was content to live within an international system centered around US hegemony, its surge in both economic and political capital has encouraged the CCP to increase foreign political interference operations and develop cyber-op- erations strategies to hedge against risk from both state and individual actors that the CCP perceives as a threat to regime security.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise of China's Hacking Culture: Defining Chinese Hackers
    California State University, San Bernardino CSUSB ScholarWorks Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations Office of aduateGr Studies 6-2016 The Rise of China's Hacking Culture: Defining Chinese Hackers William Howlett IV California State University - San Bernardino Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd Part of the Asian Studies Commons, Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons, International Relations Commons, Politics and Social Change Commons, and the Science and Technology Studies Commons Recommended Citation Howlett, William IV, "The Rise of China's Hacking Culture: Defining Chinese Hackers" (2016). Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations. 383. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd/383 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Office of aduateGr Studies at CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE RISE OF CHINA’S HACKING CULTURE DEFINING CHINESE HACKERS A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, San Bernardino In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Social Sciences and Globalization by William Sedgwick Howlett June 2016 THE RISE OF CHINA’S HACKING CULTURE DEFINING CHINESE HACKERS A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, San Bernardino by William Sedgwick Howlett June 2016 Approved by: Cherstin Lyon, Committee Chair, Social Sciences and Globalization Jeremy Murray, Committee Member, History Jose Munoz, Committee Member, Sociology © 2016 William Sedgwick Howlett ABSTRACT China has been home to some of the most prominent hackers and hacker groups of the global community throughout the last decade.
    [Show full text]
  • Penggunaan Kapabilitas Cyberwarfare Tiongkok Dalam
    IR - PERPUSTAKAAN UNIVERSITAS AIRLANGGA DAFTAR PUSTAKA Artikel Jurnal dan Jurnal Elektronik Breen, M., & Geltzer, J. A. (2011). Asymmetric strategies as strategies of the strong. Parameters, 41(1), 41. Burk, R. A., & Kallberg, J. (2016). Bring on the Cyber Attacks–The increased predatory power of the restrained red queen in a nation-state cyber conflict. The Cyber Defense Review, 1(2), 61-72. Eun, Y. S., & Aßmann, J. S. (2016). Cyberwar: Taking stock of security and warfare in the digital age. International Studies Perspectives, 17(3), 343-360. Gootman, S. (2016). OPM hack: The most dangerous threat to the federal government today. Journal of Applied Security Research, 11(4), 517-525. Haizler, O. (2017). The United States’ Cyber Warfare History: Implications on Modern Cyber Operational Structures and Policymaking. Cyber, Intelligence, and Security, 1(1), 31-45. Heginbotham, E. (2015). The US-China military scorecard: Forces, geography, and the evolving balance of power, 1996–2017. Rand Corporation. Hjortdal, M. (2011). China’s use of cyber warfare: Espionage meets strategic deterrence. Journal of Strategic Security, 4(2), 1-24. Iasiello, E., 2014., Is cyber deterrence an illusory course of action?. Journal of Strategic Security, 7(1), 54-67 SKRIPSI PENGGUNAAN KAPABILITAS CYBERWARFARE TIONGKOK … PRADANA ADI PRASETYO IR - PERPUSTAKAAN UNIVERSITAS AIRLANGGA Krekel, B. (2009). Capability of the People's Republic of China to conduct cyber warfare and computer network exploitation. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORP MCLEAN VA. Lewis, J. A., & Hansen, S. (2014). China's cyberpower: International and domestic priorities. Australian Strategic Policy Institute Liff, A. P. (2012). Cyberwar: a new ‘absolute weapon’? The proliferation of cyberwarfare capabilities and interstate war.
    [Show full text]
  • A Temperate Alternative to Cyber Insecurity
    Authorized Investigation: A Temperate Alternative to Cyber Insecurity Casey M. Bruner* “Wage war honorably. You may be obliged to wage war but not to use poison arrows.”1 -Baltasar Gracián I. INTRODUCTION In 2011, “Operation Shady RAT” became universally known as one of the most widespread and pervasive cyber espionage campaigns ever discovered.2 The security breach, which persisted over a five-year period, infected more than seventy organizations worldwide including: federal and state government entities, high-tech and communications businesses, thirteen different national defense contractors, and the International Olympic Committee, among others.3 The Operation Shady RAT vulner- ability promulgated the way most computer viruses do: through an email and an attachment.4 An employee of one of the infected defense contrac- tors received an email with an Excel file attached.5 The file contained a * Casey Bruner is a J.D. Candidate at Seattle University School of Law. He previously served as Project Manager for the National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR) and for the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property (IP Commission). The views, opinions, and policy recom- mendations contained in this paper are his alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of NBR, the IP Commission, or any other organization. 1. BALTASAR GRACIÁN, THE ART OF WORLDLY WISDOM 67 (Joseph Jacobs trans., Dover Publications 2005) (1653). 2. See DMITRI ALPEROVITCH, MCAFEE, REVEALED: OPERATIONS SHADY RAT (2011), http://www.mcafee.com/us/resources/white-papers/wp-operation-shady-rat.pdf; see also WILLIAM C. HANNAS ET AL., CHINESE INDUSTRIAL ESPIONAGE: TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION AND MILITARY MODERNIZATION 220 (2013) (stating that some experts believe that the “Shady RAT” vulnerability originated in China).
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber Threats and Nuclear Weapons New Questions for Command and Control, Security and Strategy
    Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies Occasional Paper Cyber Threats and Nuclear Weapons New Questions for Command and Control, Security and Strategy Andrew Futter Cyber Threats and Nuclear Weapons New Questions for Command and Control, Security and Strategy Andrew Futter RUSI Occasional Paper, July 2016 Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies ii Cyber Threats and Nuclear Weapons Over 180 years of independent defence and security thinking The Royal United Services Institute is the UK’s leading independent think-tank on international defence and security. Its mission is to be an analytical, research-led global forum for informing, influencing and enhancing public debate on a safer and more stable world. Since its foundation in 1831, RUSI has relied on its members to support its activities, sustaining its political independence for over 180 years. London | Brussels | Nairobi | Doha | Tokyo | Washington, DC The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s), and do not reflect the views of RUSI or any other institution. Published in 2016 by the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution – Non-Commercial – No-Derivatives 4.0 International Licence. For more information, see <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/>. RUSI Occasional Paper, July 2016. ISSN 2397-0286 (Online). Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies Whitehall London SW1A 2ET United Kingdom +44 (0)20 7747 2600 www.rusi.org RUSI is a registered charity (No. 210639) Contents Acknowledgements v Introduction: Hacking the Bomb 1 I.
    [Show full text]
  • The Disinformation Age
    Steven Livingston W. LanceW. Bennett EDITED BY EDITED BY Downloaded from terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/1F4751119C7C4693E514C249E0F0F997THE DISINFORMATION AGE https://www.cambridge.org/core Politics, and Technology, Disruptive Communication in the United States the United in https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms . IP address: 170.106.202.126 . , on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:34:36 , subject to the Cambridge Core Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.202.126, on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:34:36, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/1F4751119C7C4693E514C249E0F0F997 The Disinformation Age The intentional spread of falsehoods – and attendant attacks on minorities, press freedoms, and the rule of law – challenge the basic norms and values upon which institutional legitimacy and political stability depend. How did we get here? The Disinformation Age assembles a remarkable group of historians, political scientists, and communication scholars to examine the historical and political origins of the post-fact information era, focusing on the United States but with lessons for other democracies. Bennett and Livingston frame the book by examining decades-long efforts by political and business interests to undermine authoritative institutions, including parties, elections, public agencies, science, independent journalism, and civil society groups. The other distinguished scholars explore the historical origins and workings of disinformation, along with policy challenges and the role of the legacy press in improving public communication. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core. W. Lance Bennett is Professor of Political Science and Ruddick C.
    [Show full text]