A quick survey of recent cyber news:
***
The Economist had a very good segment on the debate over whether industrial cyber-espionage (what I prefer to call cyberexploitation) is the biggest threat to relations between America and China. This is a really great tool because the debate is being carried out in the Oxford Style. Adhering to the Oxford Style, the debate has a proposer, an opposition, and a moderator, and readers are allowed to vote on the debate winners and address questions and comments to the moderator. There will also be “featured guests . . . to provide context and informed perspective on the subject.”
From the moderator’s (Vijay V. Vaitheeswaran) opening remarks:
During the course of this debate, we will be wrestling with the question of whether concerns over China’s use of industrial cyber-espionage will be merely a minor irritant in US-China relations or if they could prove to be the main source of friction between these great powers.
From the proposer, Duncan Clark (Chairman and founder of BDA China), on why Chinese cyberexploitation is the biggest threat to relations between America and China:
With spiraling labour costs and serious environmental challenges, China urgently needs to move up the value chain and away from low-margin, high-polluting manufacturing. As Mr Donilon pointed out, both America and China recognise that intellectual property and trade secrets are vital to innovation and economic growth. But if China develops a dependency on cyber-espionage as the principal means to bolster its industrial performance, this will seriously undermine both US-China relations and China’s own capacity to innovate . . . It is time to blow the whistle.
From the opposition (Minxin Pei):
. . . it would be a gross exaggeration to claim that Chinese industrial cyber-espionage presents the biggest threat to US-China relations . . . In the context of Sino-American strategic distrust and the changing balance of power, geopolitical risks far outweigh specific acts motivated by commercial interests in setting the course of US-China relations. Even if we concede that industrial cyber-espionage is fast emerging as a huge irritant, with the potential of severely damaging bilateral relations, we need to consider the following mitigating factors.
This is a very interesting debate, and there are some really good sentiments expressed in the comment section. Currently the vote stands 33% for, 67% against the motion. Any thoughts?
Again, all credit to The Economist, please check out the debate here.
***
Today President Obama announced the BRAIN initiative, which hopes to “revolutionize the understanding of the human brain.” This according to a DARPA press release titled “Better Understanding of Human Brain Supports National Security.”
The press release explains that the BRAIN initiative “could inspire the design of a new generation of information processing systems; lead to insights into brain injury and recovery mechanisms; and enable new diagnostics, therapies and devices to repair traumatic injury.”
I’ve gotten really interested in this brain technology stuff because I believe it represents the next great technological jump. I’ve written about this before (here and here). The ABA Journal released a provocative article questioning whether neural devices will change mankind. If we can’t achieve cybersecurity, how can we ever achieve neurosecurity?
Anyways, this is all kind of speculative, but I found it really interesting that the President of the United States announced that we’re all in on this. Make no mistake, this will be the next great technological/legal/ethical challenge.
I hate to do this, but this WH infographic is pretty cool (if not a bit long):
***
Mark Feeney reported for The Boston Globe on the movie “High Tech, Low Life,” a look at how two Chinese citizen journalists “use their blogs to expose corruption and scandal” while doing their best to avoid the Great Firewall.
***
Via FCW”s Amber Corrin, an article titled “Industry to government: We need help with cybersecurity.”
Along similar lines, Gordon Griffin wrote for The Hill on how to sell cybersecurity standards to the private sector.
***
Via Forbes’ Larry Magid, Dealing with Spam and Cyberattacks: Control Vs. Openness
***
For your consideration, a proposal to reform the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) by the Heritage Foundation’s Derek Scissors.
2 Pingbacks