Link[1] Why a cybersecurity treaty is a pipe dream
Author: Adam Segal, Matthew Waxman
Cited by: David Price 5:36 PM 1 November 2011 GMT
Citerank: (12) 121697Blogs, Articles, ReportsSuggest / cite other blogs, articles, reports about the conference that you would like to see included in the map here.609FDDBE, 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, 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 URL:
|
| Excerpt / Summary One of the most contentious divergences concerns the definition of cybersecurity itself. While the United States, United Kingdom and their like-minded allies emphasize the protection of computer networks from damage and theft, Russia, China and their partners emphasize information security, which to them means controlling content and communication or social networking tools that may threaten regime stability. |