The main effect of cyberthreats on foreign and domestic policy relates to
defending against such acts, particularly attacks against critical
infrastructures. At the international level, several countries, including the
United States, have been addressing such issues as mutual legal assistance
treaties, extradition, the sharing of intelligence, and the need for uniform
computer crime laws so that cybercriminals can be successfully investigated and
prosecuted even when their crimes cross international borders, as they so often
do. This effort is not focused on either cyberterrorism or hacktivism, but
rather addresses an array of actions that includes all forms of hacking and
computer network attacks, computer and telecommunications fraud, child
pornography on the Net, and electronic piracy (software, music, etc.). It also
covers state-sponsored cyberwarfare operations that use hacking and computer
network attacks as a military weapon.
At the initiative of the Russian Federation, the U.N. General Assembly
adopted a resolution related to cybercrime, cyberterrorism, and cyberwarfare in
December 1998. Resolution 53/70, Developments in the Field of Information and
Telecommunications in the Context of International Security, invites member
states to inform the secretarygeneral of their views and assessments on (a) the
issues of information security, (b) definition of basic notions related to
information security, and (c) advisability of developing international
principles that would enhance global information and telecommunications systems
and help combat information terrorism and criminality.
The United States has taken several steps to better protect its critical
infrastructures. In July 1996, President Clinton announced the formation of the
President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection (PCCIP) to study
the critical infrastructures that constitute the life support systems of the
nation, determine their vulnerabilities to a wide range of threats, and propose
a strategy for protecting them in the future. Eight infrastructures were
identified: telecommunications, banking and finance, electrical power, oil and
gas distribution and storage, water supply, transportation, emergency services,
and government services. In its final report, issued in October 1997, the
commission reported that the threats to critical infrastructures were real and
that, through mutual dependence and interconnectedness, they could be
vulnerable in new ways. “Intentional exploitation of these new vulnerabilities
could have severe consequences for our economy, security, and way of life.”
The PCCIP noted that cyberthreats have changed the landscape:
In the past we have been protected from hostile attacks on
the infrastructures by broad oceans and friendly neighbors. Today, the
evolution of cyberthreats has changed the situation dramatically. In
cyberspace, national borders are no longer relevant. Electrons don’t stop to
show passports. Potentially serious cyberattacks can be conceived and planned
without detectable logistic preparation. They can be invisibly reconnoitered,
clandestinely rehearsed, and then mounted in a matter of minutes or even
seconds without revealing the identity and location of the attacker.
In assessing the threat from both
physical and cyberattacks, the PCCIP concluded that; Physical means to exploit physical vulnerabilities probably
remain the most worrisome threat to our infrastructures today. But almost every group we met voiced concerns about the new
cyber vulnerabilities and threats. They emphasized the importance of developing
approaches to protecting our infrastructures against cyberthreats before they materialize and produce
major system damage.
CONCLUSIONS
The Internet is clearly changing the landscape of political discourse and
advocacy. It offers new and inexpensive methods for collecting and publishing
information, for communicating and coordinating action on a global scale, and
for reaching out to policymakers. It supports both open and private
communication. Advocacy groups and individuals worldwide are taking advantage
of these features in their attempts to influence foreign policy.
Several case studies show that when the Internet is used in normal,
nondisruptive ways, it can be an effective tool for activism, especially when
it is combined with other media, including broadcast and print media, and
face-to-face meetings with policymakers. As a technology for empowerment, the
Net benefits individuals and small groups with few resources as well as
organizations that are large or well-funded. It facilitates such activities as
educating the public and media, raising money, forming coalitions across
geographical boundaries, distributing petitions and action alerts, and planning
and coordinating events on a regional or international level. It allows
activists in politically repressive states to evade government censors and monitors.
BY MWINYIJUMA REHEMA
BAPRM III - 42686
No comments:
Post a Comment