Ahead of the UK Cyberspace Conference in London on 1-2 November, Peter Sommer welcomes the British Foreign Secretary’s interest in cyber space and cyber security policies, but fears that current international cyberspace treaties that are too vague and generalised for success.

With more and more money being poured into countering cyber-war we may end up with a ‘you do it to me and I’ll do it back’ threat. A sort of ‘Mutually Assured Information Meltdown’. From MAD to MAIM if you will.

The only drawback here is that, unlike a nuclear attack, you don’t need anything other than a computer and a connection to launch a cyberattack. It can also be launched from unexpected quarters.

And what if the only pre-emptive action you could take against a suspected cyber-attack was a physical military one?
There is due to be a meeting in London next month of over 60 nations and internet giant bosses to discuss the cyber threat and attempt to agree an ‘International Rule Book’ on combating it.

The public have become used to hearing politicians warning about the dangers lurking in cyberspace.

The UK now regards the threat from cyber warfare as seriously as that from international terrorism, while a recent report warned that extremists were increasingly turning to social media to recruit followers and plan attacks.

At the same time, the risk posed by cyber espionage and other state-sponsored covert activities is on the rise.

We need to protect the internet and make sure that it doesn’t become dominated by criminals, or it doesn’t become an avenue to attack our economy through systematic attacks. But how do you do that without government action? And how do you ensure that governments won’t use their newborn powers to restrict our freedoms?

Hague promises: “In London, we hope to set an agenda that will allow the world to enjoy the full benefits of a safe and secure cyberspace for generations to come.”

This will be one of the great balancing acts of our time. Providing some level of cyber security, without seriously undermining cyber freedom.

We need an internet that’s open, stable and secure. So how do you ensure cyberspace is a welcoming place for all its users, from hobbyists to scientists, from democratic activists to photographic artists? Where does government have a role? Some would say the emergence of the internet has rendered the state less relevant as an actor. There are no national borders in cyberspace, or at least, they’re harder to define. That doesn’t change the fact, however, that those who need the internet, who want to carry on finding new possibilities from its use, live in the UK. They live in Japan. They live in every country in the world, so borders are relevant, in the sense that they define who we have a duty to serve. As governments, we have a responsibility to enable our citizens to carry on using the internet, to carry on expanding its possibilities. There are lots of questions we need to ask ourselves. For example, do we need new legislation to protect cyberspace? Or can we use the same principles embedded in existing law? Cyberspace is a new way of communicating, but the principles of legal protection are the same.

Malaysia will propose a feasible idea in striving for a more responsible use of the Internet at the World Conference on Cybersecurity Law in London from Nov 1 to 3.

Information Communication and Culture Minister Rais Yatim said the proposal is not intended to curtail or filter Internet content, further from censoring information.

“Instead it will brighten the blurred lines between upholding human rights and protecting public interest in line with international laws,” he said...

So what are the outcomes I’d like to see?

1. An acknowledgement that Security = Prosperity. The internet enables businesses to transact more cheaply, and public service transaction costs to drop. This can only be done on a stable, long-term basis if people have confidence, and confidence requires security

2. Pressure put on the ‘you know who’s’ of this world that conduct major cyber attacks, and increased penalties for those that are convicted of being active threat actors

3. Walking away from regulation. I’m constantly involved in arguments with peers in the industry that see regulation as the way forward. I am convinced this is a bad thing. Regulation will naturally favour the larger players, pushing out SMEs. SMEs are where the innovation comes from: the majority of economies depend on the SME sector for the vast proportion of their GDP, and frankly, both Google and Facebook were SMEs once.

India, being a major player in Information Technology while belonging to the developing world and a leading democracy at that, could actually play an incredibly constructive role in helping stitching together what at the moment is a very polarized debate. Since the Arab Spring, a part of the world has been saying ‘this is fantastic, let’s have more of it.’ But another part sees it as a clear threat.

India is unique in that it speaks to both the worlds. It also has issues of cyber terrorism to highlight. British government departments receive 20,000 email attacks a month and hacking by foreign governments and corporations has cost the economy £27 billion, Maj Gen Jonathan Shaw, the country’s head of cyber security, has warned.

Last year, the American and British governments were shocked to find some of their communications routed through the Chinese telecoms network.

The London conference is the first step in what is hoped will become a structured debate on cyberspace, and is expected to be followed by more such conferences in other parts of the world.

“The issue of cyber war is a hot potato globally at present – it’s not science fiction, but science fact. The Government has no choice but to take the threat seriously and this opens the door of opportunity for the British tech industry,” says Anthony.

He maintains that the UK’s burgeoning IT and IE companies have “a massive pool of skill and talent” – sufficient to ensure “we develop the means to lead the charge against cyber warfare and espionage”.

This is one of the great challenges of our time. Nobody controls the Internet; and we can’t leave its future to chance. We have the opportunity to secure a bold and innovative future but we also face the risk that the internet is used as a force for harm. We must start to act now if we are to protect and preserve the tremendous opportunities that the development of cyberspace offers us all.

New York, 21.10.2011: Today, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression launches a key report on internet free speech rights. In the report, the UN freedom of expression special mandate makes clear that online expression must remain free of censorship and calls on all States to ensure universal access to the internet. ARTICLE 19 hails the report as a milestone in the development of policy on freedom of expression as it relates to internet and urges all governments to fully implement its recommendations.

In his report, the Special Rapporteur outlines four types of “exceptional” expression which States are required to prohibit and criminalize under international law. These are child pornography; incitement to commit genocide; incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence; and incitement to terrorism.

When ministers, officials, tech executives, Internet activists and security experts meet in London next week to discuss the management of cyberspace, they will be taking some of the first steps down a very long road.

The internet knows no boundaries, and attempts to impose rules often fail because of the very nature of the medium. That leaves room for cybercriminals to do their worst – from stealing data including sensitive personal information such as credit card details, spreading child pornography (as we have sadly seen in the horrible Amsterdam case), to state-sponsored attempts to disrupt classified government systems which, if they succeed, could lead to global chaos. I’m struck by the increasing number of media stories here in the Netherlands relating to cyberspace and the threats and opportunities which are posed by our increasing reliance on digital communications. I’ve spent much of my career working on multilateral issues. Usually these issues are regulated by international organisations with rules and procedures which provide answers to many of the difficult questions which arise – in the UN, NATO or the EU for example. But when it comes to cyberspace, treaties and firm arrangements don’t really work.

Data is the life-blood of your business and increasingly of the global economy – but it’s unlikely you have sufficient clarity about how data flows through the people, process and technology of your organisation, and, by extension the other organisations with which it interacts

“The Internet has become the public space of the 21st century…We all shape and are shaped by what happens there, all 2 billion of us and counting. And that presents a challenge. To maintain an Internet that delivers the greatest possible benefits to the world, we need to have a serious conversation about the principles that will guide us…”

—Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, 16 February 2011

There are two Internets in the world today. The first is the one you are probably using right now to read this post, through which you can connect with people around the world, surf for whatever information you want and blog at will. This Internet is a key tool for businesses to enhance productivity, for people to educate themselves about the world and for new ideas to bounce briskly from place to place. Then there is the second version of the Internet. The one here in China. The authoritarian government is fearful of the free Internet and has put in place all sorts of methods of controlling what people can read, say and access on the web. Major international sites, including Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, are completely blocked here. Certain searches are impossible, emails are monitored, many web pages simply won't open, and others open so slowly (like this blog) that only the most patient or determined will endure the wait.

Inevitably many will ask why we need another conference on the Internet. Hardly a week goes by without one turning up somewhere, maybe with a slightly different spin, or a slightly different cast, or in an edgier location—but essentially looking at issues which are either well aired already, or are not going to be taken much further forward by (yet) another conference.

We would like the London Cyberspace Conference, which takes place next week, to be different. This is why we have partnered the British Government to help organise it.

Internet governance is under attack; it may have to mend its ways to survive

Courts should have the power to jail people who breach the Data Protection Act, MPs on the justice select committee have said.

They say fines - usually about £150 per breach - are an "inadequate" deterrent when the financial rewards for wrongdoing can be considerable.

Their report also warns the information commissioner lacks the powers to fully investigate personal data abuses

Online crime and warfare will need to be addressed in ways that the FCO's conference doesn't grasp.

William Hague has talked of the need to identify "norms" of cyberspace behaviour. [...] But many of these are not norms as much as ambitions with a distinctly western cast
.
The conference's themes are vague: there is scarcely a nod to existing debates about the internet.

The London Conference seems to duplicate these [other] initiatives.

Citerank: (12) 123204Bleak prospects for a global, comprehensive cybersecurity treaty959C6EF, 123212Different interests will pull the parties apartDifferent interests among powerful states – stemming from different strategic priorities, internal politics, public-private relationships and vulnerabilities – will continue to pull them apart on how cyberspace should be used, regulated, and secured.1198CE71, 123215Should the laws of war and self-defence apply to cyber attacksShould the international laws of war and self-defence apply to cyber attacks?8FFB597, 123216Do states have a right to block information from citizens?8FFB597, 123217What roles (if any) should private actors play in Internet governance?What roles (if any) should private actors in Internet governance?8FFB597, 123220Defining cybersecurity8FFB597, 123221Protection of computer networks from damage and theftThe United States, United Kingdom and their like-minded allies emphasize the protection of computer networks from damage and theft when defining cybersecurity.959C6EF, 123222Information securityRussia, China and their partners emphasize information security when defining cybersecurity, which to them means controlling content and communication or social networking tools that may threaten regime stability.959C6EF, 123231Joint policy declarations with allies959C6EF, 123232Accept that legal gray zones will remain959C6EF, 123233Focus dialogue on focus confidence-building measures959C6EF, 123234Cultivate technical partnerships with developing states959C6EF

Adam Segal is the Ira A. Lipman Senior Fellow for Counterterrorism and National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Matthew Waxman, also a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is Associate Professor at Columbia Law School and member of the Hoover Institution Task Force on National Security and Law.

Members of the hacktivist collective Anonymous who threatened to post identifying information online about the civilian associates of Los Zetas, one of Mexico’s most powerful and violent drug cartels, have backed down just days before the November 5 target date for their operation.

Patrick Morley offers his thoughts on the role of small businesses in cybersecurity following the conclusion of the Foreign Office's Conference on Cyberspace.

The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office has hosted representatives from government, industry, business and organisations from around the world to consider how to go about reaching an international agreement regarding behaviour in cyberspace, but why is this necessary?

A leading Internet security expert warned Tuesday that a cyber terrorist attack with "catastrophic consequences" looked increasingly likely in a world already in a state of near cyber war.

Speaking outside a global conference on Internet security in London, Eugene Kaspersky, a Russian math genius, told Sky News the threat was a real and present danger.

"I don't want to speak about it. I don't even want to think about it," he said. "But we are close, very close, to cyber terrorism. Perhaps already the criminals have sold their skills to the terrorists -- and then ... oh, God."

Governments must not clamp down on Internet and mobile phone networks at times of social unrest, the British government said Tuesday – weeks after suggesting police should do just that during riots.

Foreign Secretary William Hague said the fact that criminals and terrorists can exploit digital networks is not "justification for states to censor their citizens."

And Prime Minister David Cameron said governments "must not use cybersecurity as an excuse for censorship or to deny their people the opportunities that the Internet represents."