Cybersecurity
Federalist Society Explores Legal Issues Surrounding Cyber Conflict
WASHINGTON, June 30, 2011 – The Federalist Society convened Tuesday to discuss the complex and interconnected legal and policy issues of cyber security in relation to the law of armed conflict, privacy and legislative action.
Morning and afternoon panels comprised of national security and economic security experts presented to the legal society the difficulties of applying the law of armed conflict towards cyber threats. The new threat conditions introduced by cyber intrusions and attacks do not fit the old paradigm of doing warfare. Panelists agreed, however, that the new rules should not be determined before major cyber conflicts have taken place.
WASHINGTON, June 30, 2011 – The Federalist Society convened Tuesday to discuss the complex and interconnected legal and policy issues of cyber security in relation to the law of armed conflict, privacy and legislative action.
Morning and afternoon panels comprised of national security and economic security experts presented to the legal society the difficulties of applying the law of armed conflict towards cyber threats. The new threat conditions introduced by cyber intrusions and attacks do not fit the old paradigm of doing warfare. Panelists agreed, however, that the new rules should not be determined before major cyber conflicts have taken place.
“It is not in the United States’ interests to preempt how it will develop,” said Steven Bradbury, former Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel.
“International law does not necessarily apply to cyber warfare,” said Bradbury, “it is largely a policy for the president, not lawyers, to decide the exercise of our national security.”
Panelists focused largely on the conflicts between nation states, but state-sponsored cyber threats are not always the issue. The conflict is asymmetric in nature: the majority of threat actors being organized crime groups targeting private networks and infrastructure systems, and the perpetrators are anonymous and invisible to their targets.
“This administration is the first of three to really try to grapple with this,” said Michael Vatis, founding Director for National Infrastructure Protection at the FBI.
The other panelists also acknowledged the Administration’s attempts to handle the problem, despite the posture of government and industry to be largely defensive in nature due to the anonymity of attackers and the sole legal authority of the government to enact justice.
Still, it is easier to attack than defend, said panelists. Laws and security measures designed to counteract network attacks are often obsolete by the time that they are implemented.
“The enthusiasm for the offense has overwhelmed planning for the defense,” said Stewart Baker, former Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department of Homeland Security.
According to Baker, “The problem is not that they do not have the [legal] tools, they just can’t find the guys.”
Yesterday, a defense spokesperson also told BroadbandBreakfast.com to expect the Pentagon’s cyber strategy announcement in mid-July, although an exact date was still unclear.
Cybersecurity
Senate Looks for Answers During First Public Hearing on SolarWinds Cyber Attack

WASHINGTON, June 30, 2011 – The Federalist Society convened Tuesday to discuss the complex and interconnected legal and policy issues of cyber security in relation to the law of armed conflict, privacy and legislative action.
Morning and afternoon panels comprised of national security and economic security experts presented to the legal society the difficulties of applying the law of armed conflict towards cyber threats. The new threat conditions introduced by cyber intrusions and attacks do not fit the old paradigm of doing warfare. Panelists agreed, however, that the new rules should not be determined before major cyber conflicts have taken place.
“It is not in the United States’ interests to preempt how it will develop,” said Steven Bradbury, former Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel.
“International law does not necessarily apply to cyber warfare,” said Bradbury, “it is largely a policy for the president, not lawyers, to decide the exercise of our national security.”
Panelists focused largely on the conflicts between nation states, but state-sponsored cyber threats are not always the issue. The conflict is asymmetric in nature: the majority of threat actors being organized crime groups targeting private networks and infrastructure systems, and the perpetrators are anonymous and invisible to their targets.
“This administration is the first of three to really try to grapple with this,” said Michael Vatis, founding Director for National Infrastructure Protection at the FBI.
The other panelists also acknowledged the Administration’s attempts to handle the problem, despite the posture of government and industry to be largely defensive in nature due to the anonymity of attackers and the sole legal authority of the government to enact justice.
Still, it is easier to attack than defend, said panelists. Laws and security measures designed to counteract network attacks are often obsolete by the time that they are implemented.
“The enthusiasm for the offense has overwhelmed planning for the defense,” said Stewart Baker, former Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department of Homeland Security.
According to Baker, “The problem is not that they do not have the [legal] tools, they just can’t find the guys.”
Yesterday, a defense spokesperson also told BroadbandBreakfast.com to expect the Pentagon’s cyber strategy announcement in mid-July, although an exact date was still unclear.
Cybersecurity
SolarWinds CEO Says Hack Shows Need for Information-Sharing Between Industry and Government

WASHINGTON, June 30, 2011 – The Federalist Society convened Tuesday to discuss the complex and interconnected legal and policy issues of cyber security in relation to the law of armed conflict, privacy and legislative action.
Morning and afternoon panels comprised of national security and economic security experts presented to the legal society the difficulties of applying the law of armed conflict towards cyber threats. The new threat conditions introduced by cyber intrusions and attacks do not fit the old paradigm of doing warfare. Panelists agreed, however, that the new rules should not be determined before major cyber conflicts have taken place.
“It is not in the United States’ interests to preempt how it will develop,” said Steven Bradbury, former Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel.
“International law does not necessarily apply to cyber warfare,” said Bradbury, “it is largely a policy for the president, not lawyers, to decide the exercise of our national security.”
Panelists focused largely on the conflicts between nation states, but state-sponsored cyber threats are not always the issue. The conflict is asymmetric in nature: the majority of threat actors being organized crime groups targeting private networks and infrastructure systems, and the perpetrators are anonymous and invisible to their targets.
“This administration is the first of three to really try to grapple with this,” said Michael Vatis, founding Director for National Infrastructure Protection at the FBI.
The other panelists also acknowledged the Administration’s attempts to handle the problem, despite the posture of government and industry to be largely defensive in nature due to the anonymity of attackers and the sole legal authority of the government to enact justice.
Still, it is easier to attack than defend, said panelists. Laws and security measures designed to counteract network attacks are often obsolete by the time that they are implemented.
“The enthusiasm for the offense has overwhelmed planning for the defense,” said Stewart Baker, former Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department of Homeland Security.
According to Baker, “The problem is not that they do not have the [legal] tools, they just can’t find the guys.”
Yesterday, a defense spokesperson also told BroadbandBreakfast.com to expect the Pentagon’s cyber strategy announcement in mid-July, although an exact date was still unclear.
Cybersecurity
Insulating Hardware From Software Crucial for Security of Devices, Say Silicon Flatirons Panelists

WASHINGTON, June 30, 2011 – The Federalist Society convened Tuesday to discuss the complex and interconnected legal and policy issues of cyber security in relation to the law of armed conflict, privacy and legislative action.
Morning and afternoon panels comprised of national security and economic security experts presented to the legal society the difficulties of applying the law of armed conflict towards cyber threats. The new threat conditions introduced by cyber intrusions and attacks do not fit the old paradigm of doing warfare. Panelists agreed, however, that the new rules should not be determined before major cyber conflicts have taken place.
“It is not in the United States’ interests to preempt how it will develop,” said Steven Bradbury, former Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel.
“International law does not necessarily apply to cyber warfare,” said Bradbury, “it is largely a policy for the president, not lawyers, to decide the exercise of our national security.”
Panelists focused largely on the conflicts between nation states, but state-sponsored cyber threats are not always the issue. The conflict is asymmetric in nature: the majority of threat actors being organized crime groups targeting private networks and infrastructure systems, and the perpetrators are anonymous and invisible to their targets.
“This administration is the first of three to really try to grapple with this,” said Michael Vatis, founding Director for National Infrastructure Protection at the FBI.
The other panelists also acknowledged the Administration’s attempts to handle the problem, despite the posture of government and industry to be largely defensive in nature due to the anonymity of attackers and the sole legal authority of the government to enact justice.
Still, it is easier to attack than defend, said panelists. Laws and security measures designed to counteract network attacks are often obsolete by the time that they are implemented.
“The enthusiasm for the offense has overwhelmed planning for the defense,” said Stewart Baker, former Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department of Homeland Security.
According to Baker, “The problem is not that they do not have the [legal] tools, they just can’t find the guys.”
Yesterday, a defense spokesperson also told BroadbandBreakfast.com to expect the Pentagon’s cyber strategy announcement in mid-July, although an exact date was still unclear.
-
Artificial Intelligence3 months ago
U.S. Special Operations Command Employs AI and Machine Learning to Improve Operations
-
Broadband Roundup3 months ago
Benton on Middle Mile Open Access Networks, CENIC Fiber Route in California, Investors Buying Bitcoin
-
Section 2304 months ago
President Trump’s FCC Nominee Grilled on Section 230 During Senate Confirmation Hearing
-
Artificial Intelligence1 month ago
Artificial Intelligence Aims to Enhance Human Capabilities, But Only With Caution and Safeguards
-
Broadband Roundup3 months ago
Trump Signs Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence, How Not to Wreck the FCC, Broadband Performance in Europe
-
5G3 months ago
5G Stands to Impact Industry Before Consumers, Says Verizon CEO Hans Vestberg
-
Fiber2 months ago
Smaller Internet Providers Were Instrumental to Fiber Deployment in 2020, Says Fiber Broadband Association
-
#broadbandlive3 months ago
Broadband Breakfast Live Online Event Series on ‘Tools for Broadband Deployment’ on Enhancing Rural America