War
"It's more likely...if we end up in a war, a real shooting war with a major power, it's going to be as a consequence of a cyber breach of great consequence." So said President Biden in remarks directed at the US intelligence community. His speech is worth reading in full because it takes a much more strategic perspective than that soundbite might suggest. The picture he paints is of a connected world in which geopolitical rivalry and radical climatic change create a worrying potential for global conflict.
Many researchers believe strongly that it's wrong to suggest cyber warfare will lead to a shooting war. As far back as 2012, then US Defence Secretary, Leon Panetta, was talking of a "cyber Pearl Harbor." In fact, as an article in Politico argues, "today’s cyber reality seems simultaneously less scary and more of a hot mess—a series of more frequent, less consequential attacks that add up not to a massive Hollywood disaster but rather to a vaguer sense of vulnerability." We're less phlegmatic. The US has already drawn red lines around critical infrastructure and warned Russia not to cross them. What happens when it does?
As last week's Pegasus Project demonstrated, the technology we use is inherently insecure and the tools to exploit those vulnerabilities are readily available. This week, US whistleblower, Edward Snowden, wrote "State-sponsored hacking has become such a regular competition that it should have its own Olympic category...Each country denounces the others’ efforts as a crime, while refusing to admit culpability for its own infractions." Snowden suggests trade (and investment) in "intrusion software" should be criminalised and where a nation state is involved, "a coordinated international response" should follow. Which sounds awfully like a recipe for an eventual shooting war.