"unique and unconventional capabilities to advance US national objectives around the world"
by digby
Greenwald has another scoop this afternoon about a secret presidential directive relating to cyber-warfare:
The 18-page Presidential Policy Directive 20, issued in October last year but never published, states that what it calls Offensive Cyber Effects Operations (OCEO) "can offer unique and unconventional capabilities to advance US national objectives around the world with little or no warning to the adversary or target and with potential effects ranging from subtle to severely damaging".
It says the government will "identify potential targets of national importance where OCEO can offer a favorable balance of effectiveness and risk as compared with other instruments of national power".
The directive also contemplates the possible use of cyber actions inside the US, though it specifies that no such domestic operations can be conducted without the prior order of the president, except in cases of emergency.
I think everyone assumes that the United States has plans in place to defend itself against cyber-attacks. I would also assume it has plans to retaliate against various entities around the world who attack the US cyber-infrastructure. What is surprising about this is that we are evidently drawing up plans to "advance US national objectives around the world" which could mean any number of interesting things, couldn't it?
The article lays out a few concerns:
Asked about the stepping up of US offensive capabilities outlined in the directive, a senior administration official said: "Once humans develop the capacity to build boats, we build navies. Once you build airplanes, we build air forces."
The official added: "As a citizen, you expect your government to plan for scenarios. We're very interested in having a discussion with our international partners about what the appropriate boundaries are."
The document includes caveats and precautions stating that all US cyber operations should conform to US and international law, and that any operations "reasonably likely to result in significant consequences require specific presidential approval".
The document says that agencies should consider the consequences of any cyber-action. They include the impact on intelligence-gathering; the risk of retaliation; the impact on the stability and security of the internet itself; the balance of political risks versus gains; and the establishment of unwelcome norms of international behaviour.
Among the possible "significant consequences" are loss of life; responsive actions against the US; damage to property; serious adverse foreign policy or economic impacts.
Yeah, I think we need to have discussions with our international partners about what the appropriate boundaries are. Also too: the American people, particularly if this is being developed to use in the US.
I would also be concerned about whether the US has decided to use these capabilities to "protect" multi-national business concerns. In fact, the the back and forth between the US and the Chinese alluded to in the article is highly likely to be about intellectual property rights. I just hope that it doesn't get out of hand and result in a shooting war at some point. I'd hate to think we ever went to war over some pirated Disney movies. (Of course, it wouldn't be the first time such a thing happened would it?)
I think this should be debated. If the US thinks it can use cyber attacks to "advance its national interest" I think we need to know how they define that. What are the rules of the road here? If the document had said they were planning for contingencies/retaliatory strikes in case of a cyber-war launched by another country (or even an unknown adversary) I'd be less concerned. But this sounds like first strike stuff with the rationale for using it left extremely vague.
It brings to mind the "March of Folly", where boys and their new toys decide they can test the boundaries without thinking through the ramifications. The results are often very violent. We should be formulating a policy on this in a democratic fashion not just drawing up plans for a cyber-war of aggression that could easily lead to a real one if we aren't careful.
.