Search

Begin New Search Topic Cyberspace Political Geography North America

1. US-South Korea Cyber Cooperation: Towards the Higher-Hanging Fruits

Author:
Jenny Jun and So Jeong Kim
Publication Date:
12-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
In the past decade, the US and South Korea faced a relatively narrow set of challenges in cyberspace, notably North Korea’s cyber crime facilitating sanctions evasion. In the next decade, however, the two countries will face a more diversified set of challenges with growing North Korean ties with Russia, its involvement in the war in Ukraine, and intensifying US-China competition. The US and South Korea must develop a joint playbook for responding to scenarios of disruptive cyber operations targeting South Korean public and private sectors and prepare for an even more difficult environment for curbing North Korea’s cyber crime as Russia provides a way out. Over the past two years, the US and South Korea have significantly deepened and broadened cooperation on cyber issues and have expanded cooperation further to trilateral and multilateral settings. The two countries established several regular high-level and working-level dialogues, have issued joint sanctions and threat advisories, and deepened mil-to-mil cooperation. However, 2024 has been a watershed in terms of shifting geopolitical dynamics on and around the Korean peninsula. Cyber threats will become more diversified, and the bilateral relationship will be tested at the seams without a clear joint strategic concept and operational plan.
Topic:
Sanctions, Geopolitics, Multilateralism, Strategic Competition, and Cyberspace
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America

2. Decentralized Autonomous Organizations and Policy Considerations in the United States

Author:
Sarah Hubbard
Publication Date:
05-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) can be defined as global, digitally-native organizations which enable people to coordinate and govern shared resources and activities through the use of smart contracts on blockchains. The explosive growth of DAOs since 2020 has led to experimentation, speculation, and investment in this emerging organizational framework. There are an estimated 6,000 DAOs as of June 2022, with participation from contributors around the world and an aggregate treasury value of an estimated $25 billion. While the web3 space has been marred by scams and bad actors, there are legitimate use cases for DAOs. Early applications include focuses on fractionalized ownership and control, incentive alignment, resilient operations, and collective action. DAOs demonstrate innovative potential and are producing new forms of tax revenue and employment for the U.S. States have taken various approaches towards legislation, including establishing a DAO LLC. The U.S. government needs a comprehensive strategy for addressing DAOs as novel organizational structures to retain domestic innovation and protect consumers. Future policy solutions should consider the following: DAOs have technical and operational uniqueness that should be taken into account by legislators and regulators. The United States must provide legal clarity to retain domestic innovation. The friction of existing organizational formation should be reduced and adapted. A multi-pronged approach is needed across the federal-level, state-level, and industry self-governance practices. This report aims to serve as an accessible primer for United States policymakers to understand the unique opportunities and challenges DAOs present, and how these organizations may be addressed in the regulatory landscape of the U.S. The first section of this report establishes the societal context in which DAOs have emerged, with an emphasis on the trends in organizational frameworks and working conditions to which DAOs respond. The second section describes the underlying technical and structural components that DAOs are built upon. The third section outlines the key purposes and applications of DAOs and shares findings from case studies and semi-structured interviews with 12 DAOs and 20 DAO contributors. The final section provides an overview of existing legislation and concludes by outlining directional considerations for policymakers.
Topic:
Decentralization, Autonomy, and Cyberspace
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

3. The Nationalization of Cybersecurity: The Potential Effects of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission Report on the Nation’s Critical Infrastructure

Author:
H. Chris Tecklenburg and José de Arimatéia da Cruz
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Advanced Military Studies
Institution:
Marine Corps University Press, National Defense University
Abstract:
The United States is susceptible to cyberattacks. The Cyberspace Solarium Commission Report provides several recommendations to prevent and respond to such attacks. However, many of these recommendations attempt to nationalize cybersecurity. This article presents a historical overview involving the Department of Homeland Security, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and the Commerce Clause, which outlines nationalization and its effects. It will note a similar trend for cybersecurity. Finally, the positive and negative consequences of nationalization are presented.
Topic:
Cybersecurity, Homeland Security, Cyberspace, Commerce, Nationalization, and Critical Infrastructure
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

4. Sovereignty, Cyberspace, and the Emergence of Internet Bubbles

Author:
Eldar Haber and Lev Topor
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Advanced Military Studies
Institution:
Marine Corps University Press, National Defense University
Abstract:
The cyber domain emerged as a perfect platform for international struggle over power and influence. International powers are actively engaged in cyber proxy warfare due to the relatively low risk of escalation, various enforcement challenges, and the vagueness of international law within this realm. These indirect conflicts might lead some global powers to close or restrict their virtual borders to avoid or reduce the plausibility of cyber proxy warfare or unwanted foreign influence in general. The formation of such restricted networks, articulated in this article as “internet bubbles,” is already shaping within the realm of actors like Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. The authors argue that liberal democracies like the United States might be at a severe disadvantage to fight against cyber proxy warfare due to legal and constitutional barriers. But at the same time, the emergence of platform governance and self-regulation might be proven as a new force within these proxy wars and reshape its boundaries.
Topic:
Sovereignty, Cybersecurity, Internet, Proxy War, and Cyberspace
Political Geography:
Russia, China, North America, and United States of America

5. Equity and Diversity in the Nation's Cyber Workforce: Policy Recommendations for Addressing Data Gaps

Author:
Irving Lachow
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
U.S.-based businesses and government agencies face a shortage of between 350,000 and 600,000 cybersecurity professionals, and 56 percent of companies believe that their staffing shortfalls put them at moderate or extreme risk. Focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) can help organizations address that shortage by increasing the pool of available talent. Beyond the social good that comes with successful implementation of DEI policies, a 2018 McKinsey & Company report notes that organizations can also realize a positive impact on growth and performance. This is due to improved problem solving and idea generation: “Diverse teams have been shown to be more likely to radically innovate and anticipate shifts in consumer needs and consumption patterns—helping their companies to gain a competitive edge.” These benefits carry over to the cybersecurity realm. A diverse workforce can contribute to a better understanding of user behavior and the ever-evolving threat landscape. Additionally, diverse representation can help organizations identify and address implicit biases that may be impacting their ability to hire and retain talent, develop new products and services, and understand market demand across a broader demographic base. MITRE recently conducted a study, funded by the Hewlett Foundation, that examined the current state of data on the diversity of the nation’s cyber workforce. The results of that study point to a data gap that needs to be addressed
Topic:
Labor Issues, Diversity, Labor Market, Cyberspace, and Equity
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

6. Data Protection or Data Utility?

Author:
Alexander Kersten and Issac A. Robinson
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
Despite the economic upheaval wrought by the Covid-19 pandemic, the United States is now poised to enter a new period of productivity growth with the widespread deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. And just as past eras’ technologies have been driven entirely by the consumption of resources such as steam, coal, oil, and natural gas, this AI-driven period will rely on data. Yet, while this data-driven economic growth model has proven benefits to both individuals and firms, it also raises serious concerns over individuals’ data privacy. A key challenge in this regard is to ensure that data is handled securely and that the privacy of American citizens is protected. Because of the regard paid to data protection and privacy over the past decade, the proliferation of digitization has made privacy policy a part of innovation policy. However, until now, policymakers have viewed data use and data protection as trade-offs, with some nations adopting strict control of data flows. These measures have not been effective in practice; strict curbs have stifled innovation while doing relatively little to protect privacy. An alternative is to deploy promising cryptographic software solutions that can enhance privacy while still allowing access to data. This solution not only unlocks the commercial potential of data for use by firms, law enforcement, nonprofits, and researchers but also protects individuals’ privacy. Realizing the benefits of this win-win solution will require further development and widespread adoption of emerging cryptographic software solutions.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Innovation, Cyberspace, and Encryption
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

7. Trying to govern the ungovernable: International Law on cyber and information operations in Russian

Author:
Asbjørn Thranov and Flemming Splidsboel Hansen
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
Abstract:
Russia has proposed an international regime governing the use of cyber and information operations. However, ‘digital sovereignty’ means something very different in Moscow than it does in Washington. In September 2020, the Russian authorities launched a new initiative to regulate the use of cyber and information operations by states. The Russian President, Vladimir Putin, introduced the debate by suggesting that Russia and the USA lead the way by signing a bilateral agreement restricting their activities in the field of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). The two states, so Putin suggested, should establish regular dialogue and set up a ‘hot line’. Putin also proposed a new agreement on cyber and information operations that should ‘exchange guarantees against interference in the internal affairs of the other side, including into electoral processes, inter alia, by means of the ICTs and high-tech methods’. Shortly afterwards, the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, added more details. In a statement, he drew a dark picture of the world ‘facing a real cyber pandemic’, pointing to the risk of cyber attacks against critical infrastructure and the interference by some states in the internal affairs of other states. ‘It is high time’, so he claimed, that the international community agreed on a regime to regulate the use of ICTs. Russia has proceeded to promote the new initiative at the current 75th session of the UN General Assembly, which has responded with a decision to renew the mandate of the open-ended working group on the security and use of ICTs in 2021-2025.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, International Organization, Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Internet, and Cyberspace
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, North America, and United States of America

8. To Beat China On Tech In Emerging Markets, Learn From It: Competing with China on 5G and future technologies

Author:
Luke Patey
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
Abstract:
Recommendations: The US, South Korea, Japan, and the EU can pool resources to level the playing field with China and offer new finance options for developing countries seeking to upgrade their communications and technology infrastructure. The US should look to the India and Vietnam model and help other nations develop domestic capacities that lower dependencies on Huawei and other foreign tech providers over time. Open RAN is no silver bullet to compete with China. Its potential will only be fully realized in the mid and long run, after high integration costs, security gaps, and other problems are worked out.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Development, Politics, Science and Technology, Power Politics, Economy, and Cyberspace
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

9. US-Russian Contention in Cyberspace: Are Rules of the Road Necessary or Possible?

Author:
Pavel Sharikov
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM)
Abstract:
In recent years, as news of U.S.-Russian tensions in the cyber domain has dominated headlines, some strategic thinkers have pointed to the need for a bilateral cyber “rules of the road” agreement. American political scientist Joseph Nye, a former head of the U.S. National Intelligence Council, wrote in 2019 that, even “if traditional arms-control treaties are unworkable” in cyberspace, “it may still be possible to set limits on certain types of civilian targets, and to negotiate rough rules of the road that minimize conflict.” Robert G. Papp, a former director of the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence, has likewise argued that “even a cyber treaty of limited duration with Russia would be a significant step forward.” On the Russian side, President Vladimir Putin himself has called for “a bilateral intergovernmental agreement on preventing incidents in the information space,” comparing it to the Soviet-American Agreement on the Prevention of Incidents on and Over the High Seas. Amid joint Russian-U.S. efforts, the Working Group on the Future of U.S.-Russia Relations recommended several elements of an agreement in 2016, among them that Russia and the U.S. agree “on the types of information that are to be shared in the event of a cyberattack” (akin to responses to a bio-weapons attack) and prohibit both “automatic retaliation in cases of cyberattacks” and “attacks on elements of another nation’s core internet infrastructure.” Most recently, in June 2021, a group of U.S., Russian and European foreign-policy officials and experts called for “cyber nuclear ‘rules of the road.’”
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Military Strategy, Cybersecurity, Conflict, and Cyberspace
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, North America, and United States of America

10. Unpacking US Cyber Sanctions

Author:
Allison Peters and Pierce MacConaghy
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Third Way
Abstract:
Malicious cyber activity poses one of the greatest threats to America’s national, economic, and personal security. Yet, the perpetrators of these crimes largely operate with pure impunity and face little consequences for their actions. This is particularly the case for cybercriminals who cost the US economy anywhere from $57 billion to $109 billion in 2016 alone.1 Since 2015, the United States has imposed targeted sanctions (e.g., asset freezes, travel bans) on over 300 individuals and entities in response to malicious cyber activity.2 Many of these sanctions were issued under the cyber-related sanctions program administered by the Department of Treasury and established by a series of Executive Orders under Presidents Obama and Trump and bills passed by Congress.3 Sanctions have largely been imposed on individuals with ties to Iran, Russia, and North Korea, and, in about half of these cases, sanctions have followed indictments. An overwhelming majority of these sanctions have targeted individuals with suspected links to government entities and, only recently, have cyber sanctions targeted cybercriminals.4 As targeted sanctions increasingly become a tool deployed by the US government to punish malicious cyber actors, it remains unclear whether they are having an impact in changing behavior. Research on the impact of sanctions more broadly indicates that sanctions can be an effective tool to impose consequences on bad actors and change their actions when employed multilaterally, as part of a coherent strategy, and effectively messaged.5 However, imposing sanctions on malicious cyber actors without continuously reassessing their impact and the expected reciprocal actions by the target(s), risks a number of potentially negative outcomes. While Congress introduced legislation in the 116th Congress to impose new or codify existing cyber-related sanctions into law,6 it has not exercised the necessary oversight over the Executive Branch’s strategy in issuing cyber-related sanctions and determining their efficacy. With other countries now following America’s lead in issuing these sanctions, the time is ripe for the new Congress to push for an inter-agency, holistic assessment of the impact of US cyber-related sanctions.7 And with cybercrime increasingly threatening all sectors of the US economy, Congress must call for an evaluation as to whether sanctions on non-state cybercriminals should increasingly be used.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Sanctions, Cyberspace, and Digitalization
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America