<div dir="ltr">Honestly, that might be one of very few naive statements in this cybersecurity essay. Sure, neither of the authors have a technical background, so the metaphors might suck, but their understanding of the situation doesn't. The piece does a good job of remaining impartial and examining both sides. The authors <b>get it</b> and do a good job of laying out the dilemmas, most of which lie around the difficulty of understanding who is doing what (attribution) and what each nation can potentially get away with (a lot). The authors are aware enough to understand that, while the US isn't in direct control of the Internet (and shouldn't be), it nevertheless has the potential to control some significant portions of it.<div><br></div><div>"U.S. technology
companies dominate the global Internet economy, with the United States accounting for 25% of
global telecom revenue in 2015 and capturing close to 25% of the G-20’s Internet economy."<br><div><br></div><div>The gems they've pulled into this piece are nothing less than <i>frameworthy</i>:<div><br></div><div><i>“Our work
is not yet done. I believe we can expand our cooperation in this area.” --Barack Obama<br></i></div></div><div><br></div><div>DUH.</div><div><br></div><div><i>"The U.S. State Department spent approximately $100 million between 2008 and
2012 to fund activities such as training digital activists in hostile environments and developing
circumvention tools to bypass state-sponsored Internet filters."</i><br></div><div><br></div><div>Kinda sucks when we can't get into an iPhone though, LOL.</div><div><br></div><div><i>"In September 2015, U.S. ambassador
to the United Nations Samantha Power announced a $10 million venture-capital-like fund for the
development of new circumvention technologies, as part of an increase of the annual budget for
Internet freedom to $33 million."</i><br></div><div><br></div><div>In other words, an amount equivalent to the average an internet-enabled blender startup raises in their Series C.</div><div><br></div><div><i>U.S. military strength is intertwined with and dependent on the current structure of the
Internet. Because the Pentagon relies on secure networks and data to carry out its missions,
much of the emphasis has been on its vulnerability to cyberattacks from potential adversaries.
The Defense Science Board, for example, warned in a January 2013 report that the “benefits to an
attacker using cyber exploits are potentially spectacular.”</i><br></div><div><br></div><div>Hmmm, maybe weakening encryption is a bad idea?</div><div><br></div><div><i>Former NSA director Michael Hayden put it bluntly when justifying some
of the agency’s activities by telling the National Journal, “This is a home game for us. Are we not
going to take advantage that so much of it goes through Redmond, Washington? Why would we
not turn the most powerful telecommunications and computing management structure on the
planet to our use?"</i><br></div><div><br></div><div>I'm shocked and blind sighted by this uncharacteristic statement.</div><div><br></div><div><i>The United States would like to preserve this ability to spy on others, while limiting the type of
spying countries conduct. Washington has tried to create a norm against the cyber-enabled theft
of intellectual property, trade secrets, and business strategies. In the U.S. view, however, there is
a distinction between espionage conducted for political-military reasons and hacks in support of
industrial competitiveness.</i><br></div><div><br></div><div>Aaaaand there's the problem in a nutshell.</div><div><br></div><div><i>The director of national intelligence James Clapper told an audience in
June 2015, “You have to kind of salute the Chinese for what they did, you know? If we had the
opportunity to do that, I don’t think we’d hesitate for a minute.”</i><br></div><div><br></div><div>Game, set, MATCH.</div><div><br></div><div>--Adrian</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 3:51 PM dave aitel <<a href="mailto:dave@immunityinc.com">dave@immunityinc.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><a href="http://www.nbr.org/publications/specialreport/pdf/Free/06192016/SR57_US-China_April2016.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.nbr.org/publications/specialreport/pdf/Free/06192016/SR57_US-China_April2016.pdf</a><br>
<br>
Reading down into the cyber section...<br>
"""<br>
Beijing and Washington share an interest in preventing extremist groups<br>
and other third parties from attacking critical infrastructure and<br>
should discuss joint measures to stop the proliferation of capabilities<br>
to nonstate actors.<br>
"""<br>
<br>
That's the kind of sentence that only makes sense if you're thinking<br>
about export control actually working as if "Cyber Capabilities" were<br>
something more than "code" and "information". But what else could you be<br>
thinking about here? What does this actually MEAN?<br>
<br>
-dave<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Dailydave mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Dailydave@lists.immunityinc.com" target="_blank">Dailydave@lists.immunityinc.com</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave</a><br>
</blockquote></div>