Search

Begin New Search Topic Science and Technology Political Geography Global Focus

21. The Executive’s Guide to Quantum Cryptography: Security in a Post-Quantum World

Author:
Arthur Herman
Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
This guidebook answers key questions about how quantum technology itself, in the form of quantum random-number generators (QRNG) and quantum-key distribution (QKD), can provide secure solutions for addressing the quantum computer threat. After explaining how QRNG and QKD work, the guidebook recommends that executives combine these quantum cryptographic solutions with other software-based, quantum-resistant applications that can deter future quantum computer attacks. Finally, the guide shows how quantum science will determine the future of communication technology by making it safe, secure, and ready for the twenty-first century.
Topic:
Security, Science and Technology, Business, and Quantum Computers
Political Geography:
Global Focus

22. Democracy by Design: An Affirmative Response to the Illiberal Use of Technology for 2021

Author:
Kara Frederick
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security
Abstract:
Aglobal contest between democracies and autocracies is raging on the digital front. Technology stands to alter the balance between free, open societies and closed, repressive regimes. Nation states in direct competition with the United States seek to project global influence by shaping an existing digital order to their will. Impulses toward illiberal use of technology at home threaten to curtail individual liberties, constrict opportunity, and erode a truly open society. Democracies do not yet have a model for how to confront this. In the United States, a roadmap for a solution must start with the fundamental question: How should U.S. technology companies, with the help of the U.S. government, respond to the illiberal use of technology by authoritarian actors abroad? This report contends with this question by identifying concrete actions and threat-mitigating strategies that contain the input of government, the tech sector, civil society, and academia. It provides starting points to address the systemic risk inherent in dealing with authoritarian regimes and also examines cost imposition on those complicit in tech-enabled human rights abuses. Yet a strategy aimed only at staunching the illiberal use of technology will fail in the long term. Instead, the U.S. government and tech companies alike must recruit democratic allies to purvey an affirmative agenda that promotes digital freedom across the globe. This report proposes an agenda that stresses privacy leadership by the United States and its technology companies. It identifies areas of collaboration for U.S. allies and democratic partners, like digital trade, foreign law enforcement requests for data, and technical standards. This report’s affirmative agenda also contains an imperative for U.S. tech companies to build commercial norms toward digital freedom and incentivize transparency within their own ranks. For digital freedom to prevail over authoritarian uses of technology, democracies must present something better. Together, they must establish an alternative model for the use of technology globally. These recommendations build that democratic case, starting with the United States.
Topic:
Human Rights, Science and Technology, Authoritarianism, and Democracy
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

23. Rebooting Congressional Cybersecurity Oversight

Author:
Carrie Cordero and David Thaw
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security
Abstract:
Cybersecurity oversight is due for a reboot. This paper explores the need for refreshed congressional oversight of cybersecurity. After laying out why cybersecurity oversight presents special challenges, this paper suggests that the disparate nature of the cybersecurity policymaking legal framework is mismatched to the nature of the cybersecurity problem, resulting in difficulty legislating in this space. It then provides two key recommendations to guide a congressional cybersecurity oversight reboot. Cybersecurity is a broad challenge spanning many disciplines and industries. This paper argues that the current “patchwork” legal framework is ill suited to address cybersecurity questions either for legislative oversight or effective policymaking. The paper provides an overview of the nature and scope of the cybersecurity problem, with a focus on how the complexity of the field affects congressional oversight activities. Congress has been conducting a substantial amount of oversight in this area in recent years. Those efforts, however, have not yet resulted in legislative actions that have demonstrably improved national cybersecurity. This paper seeks to aid the effort to craft legal authorities that deal with an increasingly complex set of cyberthreats. This short exposition provides a path to rebooting Congress’ approach to cybersecurity oversight in a way that would allow these issues to be addressed more comprehensively.
Topic:
Security, Science and Technology, and Cybersecurity
Political Geography:
Global Focus

24. Small Groups, Big Weapons: The Nexus of Emerging Technologies and Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism

Author:
Stephen Hummel and F. John Burpo
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point
Abstract:
Historically, only nation-states have had the capacity and resources to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) due to the significant capital, infrastructure, and intellectual capacity required to develop and maintain a WMD program. In recent years, however, this paradigm has been shifting, particularly for non-state actors. The commercialization of emerging technologies is reducing the financial, intellectual, and material barriers required for WMD development and employment. This report surveys three emerging technologies—synthetic biology, additive manufacturing (commonly known as 3D printing), and unmanned aerial systems—and examines the nexus of each with nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons agent proliferation. It examines how non-state actors might use these emerging technologies to overcome traditional barriers against the development and employment of WMD. This product, a joint collaboration of the Combating Terrorism Center and the Department of Chemistry and Life Science at West Point, is a timely primer for policymakers, scientists, and security specialists concerned with the impact of emerging technologies on WMD development and terrorists’ capabilities broadly.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Weapons, and Innovation
Political Geography:
Global Focus

25. Artificial Intimacy

Author:
Aspen Digital
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Aspen Institute
Abstract:
For all of the gains that artificial intelligent (AI) systems allow, society is only now beginning to orient itself to the tremendous ethical and political issues emerging as a result of AI’s prevalence in our society. For example, recent critiques of facial recognition software bring to light issues of algorithmic bias, data irregularities, human rights violations, and government surveillance. In response, various principles and values-based governance models are furiously being developed to direct the future of AI design. The report of the 2020 Aspen Institute Roundtable on Artificial Intelligence explored the intersection of human intimacy and artificial intelligence, investigating how different human-machine relationships may affect the development of human behavior and emotions.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Emotions, Artificial Intelligence, Behavior, Robotics, and Emerging Technology
Political Geography:
Global Focus

26. Dual Use in the DPRK

Author:
Margaret Croy
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Abstract:
Several states have succeeded in extracting “yellowcake” uranium from phosphoric acid as part of the phosphate fertilizer production process. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has both the means and motivation to undertake such work, thus significantly altering existing open-source assessments of how much yellowcake uranium North Korea could produce annually, which in turn affects estimates of how many nuclear warheads DPRK can make. There is ample rationale for the DPRK to pursue this method of uranium extraction. The dual usage of existing infrastructure would both conceal the activity and make it more difficult for international audiences to positively identify and condemn. The DPRK certainly needs fertilizer, and the information on how to extract uranium from its production is readily available. Lastly, this method of yellowcake production embodies the policy of byungjin—parallel nuclear-weapon development and economic expansion—a hallmark of Kim Jong Un’s strategy. Given these factors, the rationale for the pursuit of this method is clear. The evidence is even more so. The first section of the paper explains the science behind uranium extraction from phosphoric acid produced as an intermediary in the production of fertilizer from phosphate rock. The second section highlights some of the historical cases of states using this method to obtain uranium. The third section elucidates the reasoning and rationale for using this method in the DPRK, and the fourth section examines the open-source evidence available indicating that this method of obtaining uranium—however uncommon—is in use in the DPRK today, and is likely to continue and expand in scale.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Mining, Manufacturing, and Uranium
Political Geography:
Global Focus

27. Cybersecurity: State Attack and Response Strategies

Author:
Josephine Wolff and Ta-Chun Su
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
. One of the questions that has always been very interesting to me is “Who do we hold responsible when something goes wrong with cybersecurity?” While that is a technical question—because often when something goes wrong, there is a technical component since you are dealing with a computer and the Internet—it also very much has to do with what our liability regimes say, what our policies say, what our social norms and expectations say about who we hold accountable and who is expected to pay for the damage. So for me, I think cybersecurity is about trying to understand what we mean when we talk about the "secure Internet,” what it looks like to have a secure Internet, and who we hold responsible for all the different components of how you get there. To whom do we say “It’s your job not to answer the phishing emails,” or “It’s your job to look for bug traffic on the network.” How do we piece together that entirely complicated ecosystem of different stakeholders, and how do we identify what their different roles and responsibilities should be? ...
Topic:
Security, Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, and Interview
Political Geography:
Global Focus

28. Synthetic Biology and the Risks of Misuse

Author:
Gigi Gronvall
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
Synthetic biology is a relatively new scientific field that aims to make biology easier to engineer and, thus, more useful. It is already delivering on its enormous promise, yielding FDA-approved chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell cancer therapeutics, as well as non-medical products such as laboratory-produced fabrics, flavorings, adhesives, and detergents.[1][2] Despite such progress, however, the rapid growth and democratization of synthetic biology — almost all of which is taking place in the private sector — brings security challenges. Like all areas of the life sciences, it is “dual-use” and able to be exploited. To make misuse more limited and difficult to en‐ force, the United States will need to partner with other nations, international organizations, and international businesses to govern areas of the synthetic biology field...
Topic:
Science and Technology, Biology, and Medicine
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

29. 1st Fully Remote & Virtual (FRV) SIMULEX experience keeps 47-year streak alive at Fletcher!

Author:
Brandon Daigle, Paul Pawluk, and David Kaczmarek
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
Each year, The International Security Studies Program (ISSP) at the Fletcher School, Tufts University conducts SIMULEX, a major crisis management exercise where participants assume the roles of national policy makers in an international scenario. Throughout this three-day event, the exercise focuses on a highly realistic, near-future scenario involving key players on the world stage. SIMULEX exposes participants to the constraints and opportunities facing policy makers in the quest of making the best possible decisions and enacting associated actions. As representatives of various national and international teams, participants are charged with developing strategy and the necessary tasks required to achieve their country specific goals while driving efforts to bring the global crisis to a preferred end state. In an atmosphere of conflict escalation, SIMULEX stresses leadership in uncertainty, crisis management, team building, adaptability, and policy negotiation skills.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Leadership, Crisis Management, and Higher Education
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

30. An Effects-Centric Approach to Assessing Cybersecurity Risk

Author:
Charles Harry and Nancy Gallagher
Publication Date:
03-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM)
Abstract:
Faced with rapidly growing cyber threats, organizational leaders, and government officials cannot reliably secure all data and digital devices for which they are responsible. The best they can do is conduct strategic risk management. That requires a systematic way to categorize potential attacks and estimate consequences in order to set priorities, allocate resources, and mitigate losses. The 2018 U.S. National Cyber Strategy holds government officials accountable for doing cyber risk management based on the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework and recommendations from not-for-profit organizations such as the Center for Internet Security (CIS) and ISACA. Yet, none of these policy documents and best practice guides actually provide the necessary analytical tools. As a result, public agencies, private companies, and non-profit groups that try to do risk assessment often feel overwhelmed rather than empowered to make strategic cybersecurity decisions. The Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) has developed an analytical framework that provides four essential building blocks needed to satisfy the principles in the NIST Standard Framework and other best practice guides: 1. A standardized system for classifying cyber threats and events by their effects. 2. Tools to associate organizational functions with IT topologies. 3. Algorithms to assess the severity of disruptive and exploitative cyber events. 4. A method to understand the integrated nature of risk across different parts of a simple organization, major divisions of a complex organization, or interconnected organizations in a complex system. These building blocks can be combined in different ways to answer critical questions, such as: • What is the range of cyber risks to different types of organizations? • Which threats pose the greatest risk to a specific department or organization? • How could an attack on one part of an IT network affect other organizational functions? • What is the accumulated risk across a critical infrastructure sector or geography? Using a comprehensive, consistent, and repeatable method to categorize and measure risk can enhance communication and decision-making among executives who make strategic decisions for organizations and their IT staff with day-to-day responsibility for cybersecurity. It can facilitate cooperation between public officials and private industry who share responsibility for different components of national critical infrastructure. It can inform media coverage and public debate about important policy questions, such as which decisions about cybersecurity should be purely private decisions, whether government should incentivize or mandate certain cybersecurity choices, and when a cyber attack warrants some type of military response.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Military Strategy, Cybersecurity, and Media
Political Geography:
Global Focus