nye188_Sergei KonkovTASS via Getty Images_russia hacker

Normas de conducta en Internet para Estados Unidos y Rusia

Mar 5, 2019 Joseph S. Nye

CAMBRIDGE – La respuesta de Estados Unidos a la ciberinterferencia rusa en la elección presidencial de 2016 ha sido débil. El presidente estadounidense Barack Obama había avisado a su par ruso Vladimir Putin que habría repercusiones, pero cuestiones de política interna relacionadas con la elección de Donald Trump impidieron una respuesta eficaz. Puede que eso esté por cambiar.

Hace poco, funcionarios estadounidenses reconocieron en forma anónima que Estados Unidos utilizó ciberoperaciones ofensivas para impedir que una “granja de trolls” del Kremlin interfiriera en la elección legislativa de 2018. Aunque de esa clase de operaciones se habla poco, pueden indicar un modo de disuadir interferencias en la elección presidencial estadounidense de 2020. Pero atacar granjas de trolls no será suficiente.

En la prevención de ciberataques, la disuasión mediante amenaza de represalias sigue siendo una táctica crucial, aunque subutilizada. Los sistemas eléctricos de Estados Unidos no han sido blanco de ataques, pese a que según informes, están infiltrados por China y Rusia. La doctrina del Pentágono es que ante eventuales daños se responderá con cualquier arma que elija el gobierno, y parece que en ese nivel la disuasión funciona.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 2 in all 2 Comments on this article

G B Mar 10, 2019

US leaders lie, agitate, fuel and hijack protests and turns them into violent/expedient little regime change projects (including but not limited to covert means with plausible deniability which is typically how cunning US leaders behave and operate) with bloodshed, the same script that leads to illegal attacks/invasions (Iraq, Libya, etc. which are war crimes) causing millions being raped / murdered / injured / traumatized / enslaved and/or displaced, the endless violence and bloodbaths still inflicting these countries, provoking, radicalizing and creating more and more terrorists around the world which incite more terrorist attacks, more bloodbaths.... all unfolding daily and endlessly, unprecedented atrocities committed by these leaders who are the war criminals...yet the western media continue to cast these war criminal leaders as heroes.

These leaders (and their generals) have a lot of blood on their hands.

Are these leaders (their generals) above the law?

Are all these illegal attacks the principles and instincts deeply rooted in the American spirit?

Is this how America stands by their principles and values, national prestige, international legitimacy?

Democracies are particularly vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation by these duplicitous US leaders who lie and break laws.

Like an empire, US leaders always use its huge market to cow others into licking its dirty feet, so US leaders impose sanctions of all sorts on Iran, NKorea, Venezuela, etc.

Now, US leaders are engaging dirty tricks sabotaging basic infrastructure (power plants) causing massive and severest power outages that disrupt critical services (like hospitals): The world is watching closely, US leaders must be held accountable for any casualties dead and/or wounded caused by the power outages.

It’s very stupid and dangerous – not to mention illegal – for US leaders to say, “We don’t like your regime so we’re going to send troops in to change it.”

Now just imagine if Russia tried similar shenanigans in US or something, what the US would do?

Conflict exists in many dimensions - cyber, energy, financial, cultural, military, social, psychological etc...and US leaders always cheat, lie engaging such activities leading to illegal attacks/invasions (Iraq, Libya, etc.) causing millions to be killed, injured, enslaved, raped, traumatized and/or displaced.

An empire in decline does not seek healthy competition, and it sure does not promote fair cooperation.

That's not to say that it cannot reform; it takes exceptional enlightenment for that.

What tends to happen however, is Caeserism - the break up of a previously monolithic power structure into factions loyal to various personalities vying for dominance.

All the above are not fake news.

The mainstream media, why are you telling lies and self-censoring all these ugly truths?

The poisonous hypocrisy is too toxic which will only lead to more conflicts, violence and bloodshed.

These heinous war crimes require global response and actions to charge/jail these war criminals.

These war criminals must face the music and must be charged/jailed for life.

Until these war criminals are charged/jailed for life, otherwise all these ugly truths must be told and re-told.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
G B Mar 9, 2019

This comment was removed by a moderator. Replies to this comment may also be deleted. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Mar 7, 2019

Joseph S. Nye, Jr. highlights the intricacy of negotiating a cyber arms-control treaty, because cyber arms are not conventional weapons. They are “non-weapons” whose deployment depends on a “single line of code, or simply the intent of a computer program’s user....It will be difficult to prohibit the design, possession, or even implantation for espionage of particular programs.” Given these premises it is difficult to enforce a cyber disarmament treaty.
Unlike nukes, it is impossible to ban cyber arms. Verification of weapon stockpiles made nuclear arms control during the Cold War possible. But it would be “virtually impossible” to verify a stockpile of cyber arms, because dual-use biotechnology capabilities are widespread and so easy to conceal that even the most intrusive and disruptive monitoring procedures would be inadequate to the task. And “stockpiles could quickly be re-created.”
The author says, the US “responded weakly after Russian cyber operations.” Economic sanctions, diplomatic expulsions and indictments were no consolation for putting up with a disastrous Trump presidency. America’s best tactic for preventing cyber attacks in the future is to strengthen its “deterrent threat of retaliation.” But deterrence alone, “will not be enough,” the US still needs diplomacy to deal with Russia.
Although it will be problematic to negotiate a cyber arms control treaty, this should not make diplomacy “impossible.” There have been “some hints” of Russian interest in some form of cooperation with the US on cyber issues. One month after the 2018 Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki, the Kremlin proposed – for the third time in two years – a treaty to prevent "cyberattacks on critical infrastructure." But Russia would only ban certain types of cyber attacks – on civilian targets, such as electrical grids.
For years the US has resisted Russia’s offer to negotiate a cyber warfare convention akin to the one that regulates chemical warfare. Its main objection has been that a cyber arms control treaty, unlike a ballistic missile treaty, is inherently unverifiable. In the cyber realm, weapons can not be identified and counted, and attribution is extremely difficult. Hence, no country can be assured whether the others are abiding by the terms of an agreement.
It comes as no surprise that US officials are understandably skeptical of the sincerity of the Kremlin’s overtures while it continues its reckless cyber operations against the US. From Washington’s perspective, these malign activities go way beyond traditional peacetime intelligence gathering. Russia takes advantage of the West’s democratic openness, and exploits its weaknesses and flaws by stoking social unrest and destabilising the liberal order.
The author says, “if traditional arms-control treaties are unworkable, it may still be possible to set limits on certain types of civilian targets, and to negotiate rough rules of the road that minimize conflict.” He says the US should “draw a line between the permitted soft power of open persuasion and the hard power of covert information warfare. Overt programs and broadcasts would continue to be allowed. The US would not object to the content of Russia’s open political speech, including their propagandistic RT television network. But it would object when Russia promotes its views through covert coordinated behavior” and manipulates public onion.
Given the “poor state” of US-Russian relations, and “the differences between American and Russian values,” it is still possible to overcome ideological hostility, that led to constructive interactions during the Cold War. But Trump is the problem – the “legitimacy” of his relationship with Russia makes negotiations difficult.
The author proposes a “professional or military-to-military dialogue,” because Russia and the US need to recognise that despite their significant differences, they have to talk to each other to “avoid dangerous escalation” in cyberspace.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/YGLX7Gj/es;

Normas de conducta en Internet para Estados Unidos y Rusia

To continue reading, subscribe now.

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Why So Many Newborns and Mothers Still Die

Fiscal Money Can Make or Break the Euro

The World Is Running Out of Time

Making MNCs Respect LGBTI Rights

Taking on Tehran

The Growing Risk of a 2020 Recession and Crisis

PS OnPoint

The American Century’s Last Man

The US Recovery Turns Ten

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register