Search

Begin New Search Topic Cybersecurity Political Geography Europe

71. The Army Role in Achieving Deterrence in Cyberspace

Author:
Jeffrey L. Caton
Publication Date:
03-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Abstract:
publication cover In 2015, the Department of Defense (DoD) released the DoD Cyber Strategy which explicitly calls for a comprehensive strategy to provide credible deterrence in cyberspace against threats from key state and nonstate actors. To be effective, such activities must be coordinated with ongoing deterrence efforts in the physical realm, especially those of near-peers impacting critical global regions such as China in the Asia-Pacific region and Russia in Europe. It is important for the U.S. Army to identify and plan for any unique roles that they may provide to these endeavors. This study explores the evolving concept of deterrence in cyberspace in three major areas: • First, the monograph addresses the question: What is the current U.S. deterrence posture for cyberspace? The discussion includes an assessment of relevant current national and DoD policies and concepts as well as an examination of key issues for cyber deterrence found in professional literature. • Second, it examines the question: What are the Army’s roles in cyberspace deterrence? This section provides background information on how Army cyber forces operate and examines the potential contributions of these forces to the deterrence efforts in cyberspace as well as in the broader context of strategic deterrence. The section also addresses how the priority of these contributions may change with escalating levels of conflict. • Third, the monograph provides recommendations for changing or adapting the DoD and Army responsibilities to better define and implement the evolving concepts and actions supporting deterrence in the dynamic domain of cyberspace.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Government, Non State Actors, Cybersecurity, and Army
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America

72. Arrests in Poland Contribute to the International Controversies Surrounding Huawei

Author:
John Dotson
Publication Date:
02-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
China Brief
Institution:
The Jamestown Foundation
Abstract:
The December 1, 2018, arrest of Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou, and the arrest of another Huawei employee in Poland, come on the heels of a series of escalating measures—or measures under consideration—by governments in North America and the Pacific Region to restrict the use of Chinese-manufactured telecommunications equipment. Such measures are now increasingly under consideration in Europe, as well, with major implications not only for the international profile of companies such as Huawei, but also for the construction of advanced communications infrastructure throughout much of the world.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Economy, and Research
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, Poland, North America, and United States of America

73. Comparative Industrial Policy and Cybersecurity: A Framework for Analysis

Author:
Vinod K Aggarwal and Andrew Reddie
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Berkeley APEC Study Center
Abstract:
This comparative project evaluates the role of firms, governments, and other key stakeholders in the rise of industrial policy in important states in the cybersecurity industry. In particular, we focus on the U.S., China, Taiwan, Japan, the EU and other key European states. Our goals are as follows: 1) to examine the motivation for government promotion of the cybersecurity industry; 2) to inventory existing measures employed by these countries; 3) to understand the driving forces of cybersecurity industrial policy in these countries; and 4) to examine the likely conflicts that will arise from the competitive pursuit of such industrial policies and how they might possibly be resolved through international cooperation. To this end, we suggest an analytical framework to serve as the comparative structure for this project, drawing on a variety of approaches to understand industrial policy.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Cybersecurity, and Industry
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Europe, Taiwan, and United States of America

74. The European Union’s Cyber Industrial Policy

Author:
Paul Timmers
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Berkeley APEC Study Center
Abstract:
Since 2013, EU cybersecurity policy has quickly developed, with many implications of an industrial policy nature, even if there is no fully articulated EU cybersecurity industrial policy. In parallel, the private sector has organized itself to better respond to cybersecurity challenges, influence policy making, and benefit from the rapidly growing cybersecurity market. EU policymakers, within a mandate constrained by national security which is the remit of its Member States, have sought to make the EU Single Market, internal security, and external relations coherently address the rapidly evolving and uncertain world of cybersecurity. To do this, they use policy tools ranging from defining common political visions to written law. The EU model for political and practical cooperation of a large number of countries on shared public, economic, and security objective, serves as an example of wider international cooperation, providing insight on positioning cybersecurity industrial policy in a wider policy context, defining governance for related policy development, and suggesting an international agenda
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Cybersecurity, Private Sector, and Industry
Political Geography:
Europe

75. Industrial Policy: The Holy Grail of the French Cybersecurity

Author:
Danilo D'Elia
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Berkeley APEC Study Center
Abstract:
The 2008 ‘White Paper on Defense and National Security’ was the first major document to focus directly on national cyber threats as a key risk to France’s sovereignty. It defined new priorities – such as cyberattack prevention and response – and established, in July 2009, the National Agency for the Security of Information System (ANSSI) as an inter-ministerial agency with national authority for the defense of information systems. In 2013, a new version of the White Paper reiterated that the capacity to detect and protect against cyberattacks was ‘an essential component of [French’s] national sovereignty and economic well-being’. The same year, the French government launched an ambitious program and invested considerable efforts and expenditure on cybersecurity industrial policy. This article captures structural characteristics of public-private partnerships and stylizes the different conflicts behind the industrial movements in the 2009-2015 period: representation of digital sovereignty versus corporate interest in global market, national defense champions versus start-up ecosystem.
Topic:
Industrial Policy, Cybersecurity, Geopolitics, Risk, and Territory
Political Geography:
Europe and France

76. A Comprehensive Cyber Security Approach: Bolstering Cybersecurity Capacity through Industrial Policy

Author:
Melissa Griffith
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Berkeley APEC Study Center
Abstract:
Finland, at the easternmost border of the European Union (EU), has set itself apart as a global leader in cybersecurity technology. However, there is a distinction between the presence of technical expertise and the effective deployment of that technology throughout industry, government, and the broader civilian population. This broader deployment is essential because for advanced industrial economies, the ability to protect and defend their use of cyberspace is just as vital to a flourishing economy as it is to mounting an effective national defence. How has Finland leveraged existing cybersecurity expertise in a manner that protects both civilian and government use of cyberspace? The government has approached this task by utilizing an existing logic for market intervention: Finland’s geopolitical position and its corresponding defence doctrine’s emphasis on defence of society by maintaining society-wide resilience in the event of a crisis. In comprehensive security (kokonaisturvallisuus), which includes cybersecurity, the responsibility for and the safeguarding of the vital functions of society are jointly held by private and public actors, industry and government, defence forces and citizens. Given this focus on industry and civil society’s role within the provision of security, Finland’s approach is well suited to the realities of addressing cybersecurity.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Markets, Cybersecurity, Geopolitics, and Industry
Political Geography:
Europe and Finland

77. UK Cyber Security Policy: The Socio-Technical Factors

Author:
Madeline Carr and Leonie Tanczer
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Berkeley APEC Study Center
Abstract:
The UK has the largest internet economy in the G20 and has the stated ambition of making the UK the ‘safest place in the world to live and work online’. Cyber security has been elevated to a ‘tier one’ threat and is regarded by the government as both a challenge and as an opportunity for exporting UK expertise. Since the publication of the UK’s National Cyber Security Strategy (NCSS) in November 2011, the government has implemented many proactive as well as reactive measures to enhance both its cyber security capabilities as well as its market power. This article provides an analysis of the shift away from a reliance on market forces that dominated Western approaches to cyber security over the early years of this century. Specifically, it highlights three ‘market failures’ that have prompted UK policy responses: ongoing data breaches, the skills gap and inadequate private investment in cyber security. An analysis of these drivers as well as the responses demonstrates that the UK’s cyber security strategy has evolved from an initial heavy reliance on market forces and the public-private partnership to mitigate against threats into what is now a confident, rounded approach to balancing threats and opportunities.
Topic:
Government, Science and Technology, and Cybersecurity
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

78. An Evaluation of the United States’ Electoral Process

Author:
Chad Vickery and Heather Szilagyi
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES)
Abstract:
he 2016 elections brought into view serious threats to the United States’ (U.S.) electoral process, though much recent attention has focused on cybersecurity and foreign interference. The U.S. has traditionally benefited from high levels of trust in the electoral process and its outcomes, but that inherent trust has been declining in recent years. The International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) routinely conducts comprehensive assessments and offers advice on how countries around the world can reform their elections to better align with international standards and best practices. However, more established democracies like the U.S. are rarely scrutinized by the election practitioner community in the same manner.
Topic:
Elections, Cybersecurity, Foreign Interference, and Election Interference
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, and North America

79. The Increasing Importance of Hybrid Politics in Europe: Cyber Power Is Changing the Nature of Politics

Author:
Gabriel Cederberg and Jarno limnéll
Publication Date:
03-2018
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Abstract:
This paper examines the concepts of cyber politics and cyber-enabled hybrid warfare. It pays specific attention to the vulnerabilities of modern Western societies from a strategic-political perspective. The paper concludes that instead of cyber politics as such, a new kind of politics is needed – hybrid politics. Hybrid politics will be presented as a potentially winning concept for European security. Key Points: Issues related to cyberspace and its uses have risen to the highest levels of international politics, creating an area and discipline known as cyber politics. Protecting critical infrastructure and services from cyber threats is a complicated matter. The cyber domain is a central part of modern hybrid warfare, and malicious cyber-technical and cyber-psychological threats have both increased. Hybrid politics is a useful concept to describe both the importance of a holistic approach and the nature of high politics in the modern security reality. Hybrid politics is constantly changing the modern political process. The European Union (EU) should primarily understand hybrid politics as a potentially “winning concept” and take active steps to implement and sustain this understanding.
Topic:
Security, Science and Technology, War, and Cybersecurity
Political Geography:
Europe and European Union

80. Building Confidence in the Cybersphere: A Path to Multilateral Progress

Author:
Nancy Gallagher and Theresa Hitchens
Publication Date:
03-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM)
Abstract:
As use of the Internet has become critical to global economic development and international security, there is near-unanimous agreement on the need for more international cooperation to increase stability and security in cyberspace. Several multilateral initiatives over the last five years have begun to spell out cooperative measures, norms of behavior, and transparency and confidence-building measures (TCBMs) that could help improve mutual cybersecurity. These efforts have been painstakingly slow, and some have stalled due to competing interests. Nonetheless, a United Nations (UN) Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) and the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OSCE) have achieved some high-level agreement on principles, norms, and “rules of the road” for national Internet activities and transnational cyber interactions. Their agreements include commitments to share more information, improve national protective capacities, cooperate on incident response, and restrain certain destabilizing state practices. Voluntary international agreements are worth little, unless states implement their commitments. So far, implementation has been crippled by vague language, national security considerations, complex relations between public and private actors in cyberspace, and privacy concerns. This is particularly true regarding the upfront sharing of information on threats and the willingness of participants to cooperate on incident investigations, including identifying perpetrators. With multilateral forums struggling to find a way forward with norm-setting and implementation, alternate pathways are needed to protect and build on what has been accomplished so far. Different strategies can help advance implementation of measures in the UN and OSCE agreements. Some commitments, such as establishing and sharing information about national points of contact, are best handled unilaterally or through bilateral or regional inter-governmental cooperation. Other objectives, such as protecting the core architecture and functions of the Internet that support trans-border critical infrastructure and underpin the global financial system, require a multi-stakeholder approach that includes not only governments but also private sector service providers, academic experts, and nongovernmental organizations. This paper compares what the GGE and OSCE norm-building processes have achieved so far and what disagreements have impeded these efforts. It identifies several priorities for cooperation identified by participants in both forums. It also proposes three practical projects related to these priorities that members of regional or global organizations might be able to work on together despite political tensions and philosophical disputes. The first would help state and non-state actors share information and communicate about various types of cybersecurity threats using a flexible and intuitive effects-based taxonomy to categorize cyber activity. The second would develop a more sophisticated way for state and non-state actors to assess the risks of different types of cyber incidents and the potential benefits of cooperation. The third would identify aspects of the Internet that might be considered the core of a public utility, worthy of special protection in their own right and for their support of trans-border critical infrastructure.
Topic:
International Cooperation, United Nations, Infrastructure, and Cybersecurity
Political Geography:
United States and Europe